RE: Draft MIB Review Guidelines

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Looks great!

A couple of suggestions:

1. about the use of DESCRIPTION clauses - I encountered to many cases when the DESCRIPTION clause of stdMIBPoofpoofCounter is just 'Number of poofpoofs'. I think that a minimal explanation, or use of the optional REFERENCE clause to the definition of 'poofpoofs' should be RECOMMENDED.
2. RECOMMEND use of TruthValue, whenever it applies (could be an 'Other Types' item at 4.6.1.5) 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Draft MIB Review Guidelines
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> Back in August, when I stirred up the controversy over whether
> TCs should get to remove syntactic constraints of base types,
> Bert Wijnen asked for a volunteer to write a CLR document.
> That volunteer turned out to be me.  The project ended up
> morphing into a MIB review guidelines document, which turned
> out to be quite a bit harder to organize that I thought it
> would be.  I've been struggling to get it written ever since.
> 
> I finally have a draft that is ready for people to poke sticks
> at.  It's far from finished, is probably inadequately
> proofread, and most certainly reflects my own idiosyncratic
> prejudices.  Still, I'd still appreciate any comments that you
> could make, especially if you have suggestions on what
> additional stuff should go in it, what should get cut out, and
> what needs to be reorganized.  [I can already see one thing I
> missed:  something needs to be said about specifying persistency
> of dynamically created rows across reboots.]  The hope-for is
> that with your help I can cobble together something that would
> be suitable for publication as a BCP.  Since it's way past the
> I-D deadline, I'm attaching the draft (such as it is) to
> this e-mail.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help.  Any comments, especially
> negative ones, will be welcome.
> 
> I will be away on travel until after Thanksgiving and
> consequently in only sporadic e-mail contact, so a slow
> response does not mean that I'm ignoring you.
> 
> Mike
>