RE: draft minutes from the sming interim:

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> 
> Despite some editorial fixes (see diff below), I have two points where
> I either disagree with the minutes are where I have changed my mind
> since early June:
> 
> 1) I have problems with the following statement:
> 
>       Other attendees disagreed with this assertion, clearly the
>       sample set of NW workshop operator's complain bitterly.
> 
>    First, I did not get the impression that operators are so unhappy
>    with SNMP for monitoring and control. Regarding monitoring, they
>    had some problems with the accuracy of data - not with the way of
>    getting the data. Anyway, I believe this is not important for the
>    minutes since the sentence before this statement is clearly marked
>    as an opinions of individuals. So I suggest to just remove this
>    sentence.
> 
[Dave] I will remove this sentence.

> 2) Regarding comments:
> 
>    We have gone back to a syntax which is close to the SMIv2 and when
>    I wrote an SMIv3 output driver for smidump and looked at the
>    output, the old comment style does not look that bad anymore. (--
>    seems to align well with ALLCAPS.) No, I am serious here. I prefer
>    to keep -- now but to just change the rules so that a comment
>    always extends to the end of the line.
> 
>    I have rarely seen a -- comment -- in a MIB module other in places
>    where it was necessary to have real contents between the end of the
>    -- comment -- and the end of the line.
> 
[Dave] People didn't really seem to care about what comment style was used
(a gratuitous change?). If you are now not in favor of changing the comment
style, then there very likely isn't group consensus for doing it. So this is
no-change, other than a minor fix. Does anyone on the list wish the smi --
comment style change to something else???