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

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

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 conformance
  - 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

Perhaps the draft should make it more clear that SMI conformance is 
dictated by the standards documents, not any particular SMI conformance 
test tool.

Andy
 

>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?
>
>> 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?
>
>> ("All" in the above two questions can mean "any that
>> comply with some open and fair rules for inclusion".)
>> 
>
>Bert
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> BobN
>> 
>>