RE: Draft MIB Review Guidelines

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Mike... I had been writing down (scribling on paper) while
flying back and forth from/to Atalanta

- Say something about discontinuity timers
- Discuss if enumerations should start with zero
- Same for BITS
- say something about StorageType and the rule that one
  needs to specify which objects need write access for
  permanent rows
- say something about rowstatus and that it must explain whihc
  objects must be properly set before activation, and
  if objects can be changed if active 
- Might say something about not needing to support createAndWait?
- Do we want to say something about a xxxReadOnlyCompliance vs
  or in addition to a xxxFullCompliance (see RFC3289 as example)
- Do we want to say something about >128 subids. I think yes
- Say something about NOT using IMPLIED ?
- You may want to check MIB related stuff on
   http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
  In fact a ptr to that web page is generally usefull

Now comments on the I-D

- seems that sect 3.1 can probably reproduce the MIB boilerplate
  (once we agree) since it will be pretty short.
- sect 3.4 
  Sometime bullet (C) must be produced.
- sect 3.6
  The sensitivity of each (group of) object(s) needs to be
  explained and text needs to be there on how to address any
  security risks/concerns
- sect 3.8
  May want to add the recommended text from:
     http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/MIB-COPYRIGHT.txt
- sect 4.6.1.1

  Not sure that this is correct:
   - For integer-valued objects that are to be used as an index column:

     - Use of Unsigned32 or Gauge32 with a range that excludes 0 is
       RECOMMENDED.  If 0 is included in the range, then a good reason
       MUST be specified.

  Do we allow Gauge32 (or does it make sense) as an index?
  Was that part of the input I provided?

- Appendix B
  Frank/Juergen, any comments?

- appendix C
  - We have now RFC2578/9/80 instead of 1902/3/4
    So better use an example that has those.
  - I would like Dave Perkins to speak up (get involved) on what the
    best flags are fro SMICng

hanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 8 november 2002 10:01
> 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
>