[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now available
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Bob Natale wrote:
>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 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
>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.
That's what I would prefer also.
>>>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.
For the record, I documented the tools that I knew were actually
used in MIB reviews. I use both SMICng and smilint in all reviews,
and I wanted to pass on practical advice regarding the use of these
tools. If there are other tools that MIB reviewers find helpful, it
would be a service to the community to mention them, too.
>>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.
I'm certainly amenable to that.