[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time commitments for MIB review
- To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Time commitments for MIB review
- From: Andy Bierman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:29:06 -0800
- Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503B64ACD@nl0006exch001u.nl .lucent.com>
At 05:02 AM 3/6/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Dear MIB Doctors,
>- The IESG (in general) and I (specifically for MIB reviews) have
> the experience that is we post a "who volunteers for review of X"
> to the review-group (like mreview) mailing list, that that most
> of the time does NOT work. Occasionaly it does, but not very often.
>- Asking someone specific to review does work better.
>- The RTG directorate has an agreement that the ADs can just assign
> a document to a specific member of the directorate and that person
> is then responsible to respond with a review within 2 weeks.
>So I am wondering if that RTG agreement could work for us as well.
>I have a long backlog of MIB documents that need MIB Doctor review.
>Over the next week or so, I would like to start assigning documents
>to the various MIB Doctors to try and clean out that backlog.
>Comments? Thoughts? Other ideas to make the MIB review process
I think I should probably resign from the MIB Doctors team.
I already have enough on my plate with NETCONF, RMONMIB, and PSAMP.
Plus work in the Entity MIB and IPPM WGs that never seems to end.
Plus all my "Cisco work" that is more than all my IETF work combined.
I haven't been able to review any documents yet (as have some
others on this list ;-)
I think being on the mailing list has still been valuable for me
though, because I'm trying very hard to keep Cisco's MIB review
guidelines the same as the IETF guidelines. Nobody likes
guidelines and CLRs, and 2 different sets of them for the
same thing is way worse.
(I'm the senior MIB Doctor at Cisco now that Keith has better
things to do :-) I'm looking forward to the MIB Review Guidelines RFC.