RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I see your point.
But we are now (basically) only refering to the SNMPv3 materials. 
So in terms of SNMP, this is the Internet-Standard. If we ever 
would get a new version of SNMP, then we probably need to adapt
the boilerplate again.

So how about:

   The Internet-Standard SNMP Management Framework

Thanks,
Bert 
-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:dbh@enterasys.com]
Sent: maandag 11 november 2002 19:04
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate


Hi, 
I have some concerns about the the "Internet-Standard Management Framework" versus "The SNMP Management Framework" issue. 
1) RFC2571 "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks" explicitly uses the "An" in the title in recognition of the fact that additional management frameworks may exist, and in particular additional SNMP management frameworks.
2) For the past few years, SNMP has been the *only* IETF-approved management framework. But over the past two years or so, a number of other management frameworks that are not designed to completetly fit within the SNMP/Internet-Standard Management Framework have been under development by the IETF. If multiple management frameworks are likely to exist in the future, and might become additional internet standard management frameworks, then should we be specifying that SNMP is "An" Internet-Standard management framework, and reflecting that in the boilerplate? 
3) As mentioned in the boilerplate discussions, and as pointed out in the new boilerplate, mibs are usually used with SNMP. This implies that other protocols could be used to access mibs. 
I think the section title should be "The SNMP Management Framework" unless the ADs and the IESG intend to constrain all (foreseeable) future management to fit within the "Internet-Standard" Management Framework. Otherwise, we will be supporting the old adage, "standards are great, everybody should have one."
dbh 



> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:57 AM 
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> Cc: mibs@ops.ietf.org 
> Subject: RE: FW: Updating the MIB boilerplate 
> 
> 
> Juergen writes 
> > Just a nit: 
> > 
> > Is the section title "The SNMP Management Framework" still 
> the correct 
> > name or are we now calling the section the "Internet-Standard 
> > Management Framework" as the first sentence and reference RFC2570bis 
> > seem to imply? From a stylisitic point, it is not really good to use 
> > an acronym in a section header before it is actually introduced. 
> > 
> 
> I can live with changing the title of the boilerplate section 
> to the suggested title, so it would become 
> 
> 1.  The Internet-Standard Management Framework 
> 
> Are there more supporters for this change? 
> Or objections? 
> 
> Bert 
>