Re: Updating the MIB boilerplate

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> Well, I have had many many complaints that the extensive
Bert> boilerplate we have used for the last few years is "just
Bert> bureaucratic overhead".

Yes. And I would agree with that.

Bert> Now... was you question intended to ask if that ref to 2570bis
Bert> should be normative?

Bert> Or is the question intended to ask if we should add the SNMPv3
Bert> documents in the boiler plate (with normative references)?

I just wanted to point out that we previously regarded documents as
being normative which we now do not consider normative anymore. This
again raises the question what "normative" really means.

There are two options. First, our previous interpretation of what is a
normative reference for a MIB was broken and we now fix it. The other
option is that I just to not understand what normative versus
informative really means. ;-)

BTW, we all know that some MIB design decisions are influenced by the
target protocol and not the SMI. The most typical example are message
size constraints and their implications. But since dealing with this
is more a MIB writers fun, one can argue that the boilerplate might a
bit oversimplify the world by just claiming the SMIv2 to be normative.

Summary: Now that I had my fun, I can live just fine with your
proposed new short boilerplate.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>