RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now available

[Bob Natale <Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com>]

At 2/25/2003:11:12 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

Hi Bert,

>> Why do we include any commercial products (as opposed
>> to none or all)?
>> 
>Valid question. Maybe we should not.
>
>But I can tell you that the current AD who is responsible
>for NM side of OPS area does uses SMICng to do serious and
>strict checking. Just to try and make sure we evaluate all
>errors/warnings for what they mean. So it might be good
>if submitters know about what we use to review.
>
>So is that a good enuf reason... or do you consider it to
>much "marketing" for one specific product?

No...yes.

IMHO, any "official" IETF MIB review process should
be based on a publicly available community toolset.
(Any number of other tools, proprietary or otherwise,
can also be used as background helpers to suit the
tastes of any individuals.)

(I always try to use a variety of tools (when possible)
to avoid the inevitable idiosyncrasies of any single
tool in any given case...and am often quite impressed
by what I learn by these comparisons.)

>> And regarding smilint, why do we include a particular
>> freeware product (as opposed to all)?
>> 
>Another good question. I think since many people use smilint.
>I think another reason is that it has a mail service for you 
>to check. I know this has been around since earlu MTR days.
>
>But it is a valid question if it should be in a RFC (once
>this doc ends up as RFC).
>
>Opinions?

Sure...smilint is a great tool and community service.
All I am saying is that the IETF process should be
open to all qualified participants who want to provide
similar/related tools/services on an equal basis.  (The
meaning of "qualified" can be established by this list,
the "MIB Doctors", the AD, etc., as long as it's fair.)

[For the record, I don't personally have or have any
interest in any MIB syntax checker product or service.]

Cheers,

BobN