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

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

> At 08:33 AM 12/17/2002 -0800, C. M. Heard wrote:
> >On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >
> >> I like Juergen's text.
> >> 
> >> Other opinions?
> 
> I like either Juergen's or Mike's text.  They convey the same
> message.  I have been following this advice in Cisco MIB reviews
> for a long time now -- I don't ignore the 32 char limit, but it's
> not as important as having meaningful descriptors.
> 
> One thing not mentioned so far is descriptor consistency.
> I like to see the same words abbreviated the same way.
> IMO, a big reason MIB descriptors are so user-unfriendly
> is that they are abbreviated in almost random ways.
> 
I agree with that too. The MPLS MIB documents are/were very good
examples of how not to do it.

Bert
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bert 
> 
> Andy