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

["Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>]

It was also surprising for me to see a commercial tool guideline in the
draft.

The only solution I can visualize is having in the draft a reference to
an url to an IETF web page listing the products on a vendor basis
request to point to its own pages, It is up to the vendors web pages to
define "hints", methodologies, tutorials, etc  to "pass" IESG.

The drawback is to burn the process of requesting inclusion/update
information about new products.

Eduardo 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Smith [mailto:ah_smith@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:11 AM
To: 'Mibs Mailing List'
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now
available


I would second Bob's opinions on this issue (all those expressed so far
at least :-)).

I make particular objection to Andy's statement that these are
"practical guidelines on how to configure these programs to check a MIB
so it will meet IETF expectations". This is newspeak for "if you don't
buy or otherwise procure these products, you won't get your MIB past the
MIB quacks and/or IESG members". It also implies that the standard is
not sufficiently documented. I don't think IETF should be making such
implications (the latter, if true, needs fixing).

Andrew Smith


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mibs@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Bob Natale
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:54 AM
To: Mibs Mailing List
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt is now
available


At 2/25/2003:11:29 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:

Hi,

>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.

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

>test tool.

That would be a very good idea.

Cheers,

BobN