RE: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [AVT] Comments on draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-xr-mib-02
> 
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Aha... great. 
> > Thanks Juergen for reminding me we should not just force 
> exact boiler 
> > plate where it is more of a CLR-type thing than a real problem.  By 
> > now I have had some more sleep. And it is also now 
> weekend... so maybe 
> > that is why I am less nit-picky today ;-)
> > 
> > I think then what we may want to do is to update the 
> mib-boiler-plate 
> > page to suggest either of those 2 forms and explain why the current 
> > form is there (history), that both forms are correct, and 
> that maybe 
> > we should recommend to use the more clearer form.
> > 
> > I will prepare the new mib-boiler-plate text after which I 
> will allow 
> > for critique.
> > 
> > If anyone have any further comments/opinions now, pls do send
> 
> Just one question, will it be necessary now to change the MIB 
> review guidelines document, which says:
> 
> 3.1.  MIB Boilerplate Section
> 
>    This section MUST contain a verbatim copy of the latest approved
>    Internet-Standard Management Framework boilerplate, which is
>    available on-line at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html.
> 
> There is still time for minor tuning, as it is still in the 
> RFC Editor queue and has not yet reached AUTH48 ...
> 
> Mike
> 


With the risk of sounding like a square-head I would prefer one
recommended text (two is less good, but still a finite small integer),
and consistency with the MIB-review document. The last thing that I need
as a MIB reviewer is to be asked to make judgments about boilerplate
wordsmith improvements. 

Regards,

Dan