[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: section 3.2 of draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> I read the document and have a few comments.
> '> ' indicates text from the draft itself (sorry it I cut/paste to
> much).
Thanks for your comments. I will answer all of them in detail but
there is one thing which needs a quick reply.
> >3.2. Narrative Sections
> >
> >
> > If the MIB modules defined by the specification are always
> > implemented in conjunction with other MIB modules, then that fact
> > MUST be noted in the overview section, as MUST any special
> > interpretations of objects in other MIB modules. For instance, so-
> > called media-specific MIB modules are always implemented in
> > conjunction with the IF-MIB [RFC2863] and are required to document
> > how certain objects in the IF-MIB are used. In addition, media-
> > specific MIB modules that rely on the ifStackTable [RFC2863] and the
> > ifInvStackTable [RFC2864] to maintain information regarding
> > configuration and multiplexing of interface sublayers must contain a
> > description of the layering model.
>
> Also the definition section should express this in its compliance
> statements. (There is later a lot of info for this compliance
> statements.)
Not necessarily. In particular, not if it means I need to
duplicate an entire compliance statement from one MIB module
into another. Consider the media-specific MIB modules that
are all sparse-augments of the IF-MIB. What you have asked
for above would have every one of them duplicating a major
part of the IF-MIB compliance statement. That creates a big
maintenance burden, which I think greatly offsets any benefits.
In the media-specific MIB modules with which I am familiar the
practice is simply to state in the narrative section that the
IF-MIB is a required prerequisite. They don't duplicate the
compliance statements in the IF-MIB. If I were reviewing a
media-specific MIB module that did that, I would sat in my
review comments that I though it was a bad idea.
As a side note, I will agree that it would be nice if SMIv2
provided some way for one compliance statement to formally
say that some other compliance statement is a prerequisite.
As it stands, the best you can do (short of copying compliance
info) is to put such a statement in the DESCRIPTION clause
associated with the MODULE-COMPLIANCE. That, I think, would
be good advice.
I wanted to get a quick answer on this topic because there are
other folks asking for the same thing, and I feel quite strongly
that there are many cases where it should not be done.
I'll deal with your other comments later, after I have had a
chance to read them. Thanks again for taking the time to
comment.
Regards,
Mike Heard