RE: Issue with MIB compilation requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Thanks Mike fro bringing this up.
> 
> One of my reasons for formulating it as we did is that if you
> use the mailer service, then you cannot specify any warning
> levels, and it assume -l 9 by default.

It would be better if we could get the mailer service to at
least omit the namelength-32 warnings, which IMHO are just
annoying noise.  Thus, it would be nice if the default assumed
by the mailer service could be "smilint -l 9 -s -i namelength-32".

> In fact I like it if people use -l 9 to check their MIB Modules.
> They should look at the warnings and evaluate if they are
> serious or not. Sometimes they are not serious and easily
> fixable too... so it would not hurt to just fix it.

I agree, with the exception of namelength-32 stuff.

> I guess we might want to clarify the "must compile cleanly".
> How about:
> 
>       * All MIBs must compile cleanly using "smilint -l 9"

Please change this sentence to:

        * All MIBs should compile cleanly using "smilint -l 9"

or

        * All MIBs should compile cleanly using "smilint -l 9 -i namelength-32"

if the command-line default is changed.

>         An email service is available for the check.
>         Extract the MIB form the document and send it in the 
>         body of an email to smilint@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de.
> 
>         This may cause some warnings (and the email service has
>         currently no mechanism to supress such warnings). Pls
>         evaluate the warnings before assuming they are OK. If
>         in doubt, feel free to check on the mibs@ops.ietf.org
>         mailing list or with OPS AD Bert Wijnen.

With that change I'm satisfied, even without adding -i namelength-32,
but I expect that here will be fewer questions with -i namelength-32.

On 12 Dec 2002, Frank Strauss wrote:
> I'll do a re-work of the mail-robot to give a better support for
> usage instructions, options support, smidiff. (I think early in january.)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Thanks you.
> Mike, so maybe we hold of changing the instructions till then?

Changes in the default command line could certainly wait,
but I don't think we should leave the blanket instruction
``must compile cleanly using "smilint -l 9"'' in place
without the disclaimer.  Otherwise perfectly good MIB
modules could be rejected, and that would be wrong.

Thanks,

Mike