[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now available
At 10:10 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, Andrew Smith wrote:
>I would second Bob's opinions on this issue (all those expressed so far
>at least :-)).
>I make particular objection to Andy's statement that these are
>"practical guidelines on how to configure these programs to check a MIB
>so it will meet IETF expectations". This is newspeak for "if you don't
>buy or otherwise procure these products, you won't get your MIB past the
>MIB quacks and/or IESG members". It also implies that the standard is
>not sufficiently documented. I don't think IETF should be making such
>implications (the latter, if true, needs fixing).
I don't agree with your rewrite of my comment.
1) the SMI is authoritative wrt/ conformance, not any particular tool
2) smilint is free and it is also available as a WEB0based service.
It doesn't have to be procured or installed.
3) Use of an SMI compliance checker is not required to get a MIB through
the IETF, but SMI conformance is a requirement, by whatever means.
The AD and the "MIB quacks" are tired of fixing errors in MIBs for
people who don't know or care about the SMI rules.
4) The SMI rules are numerous and sometimes obscure. That doesn't excuse
anyone from having to follow those rules. The guidelines document is
attempting to point out to MIB authors that there are tools available
to help check SMI conformance.
5) The SNMP community has not expressed any real desire to work on
SMI rule clarifications or simplifications. Are you volunteering to
rewrite SMIv2 for this purpose?
6) The listing of commercial products (SMICng) is problematic. It creates
the possibility that every vendor that has SW that provides some amount
of SMI conformance checking will want to be included in the document.
This could become a logistical problem very quickly.
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
>Of Bob Natale
>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:54 AM
>To: Mibs Mailing List
>Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now
>At 2/25/2003:11:29 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>At 05:12 PM 2/25/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>>> >3.) The SMICng include file in Appendix C may need to be updated;
>>>> >the editor is awaiting further input.
>>>> Why do we include any commercial products (as opposed
>>>> to none or all)?
>>>Valid question. Maybe we should not.
>>I think the current text in the draft is fine.
>> - It is in the appendix section
>> - SMICng and smilint are both excellent tools for checking SMI
>> - SMICng and smilint are the most widely used tools for this purpose
>> - the draft is providing practical guidelines on how to configure
>> these programs to check a MIB so it will meet IETF expectations
>> - If some people think an important SMI validation tool has been
>> left out, I would rather see it added than the SMICng and smilint
>> sections removed
>While I have already stated my case (that argues against
>Andy's first sentence above), I do agree with the last
>bullet in his list.
>>Perhaps the draft should make it more clear that SMI conformance is
>>dictated by the standards documents, not any particular SMI conformance
>That would be a very good idea.