[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: usage of "macro invocation" terminology in the MIB review guidelines document

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>, "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: usage of "macro invocation" terminology in the MIB review guidelines document
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:31:12 -0800
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15583D78D@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>

HI,

My comments to heard@pobox.com which resulted in a proposal to change
the terminology from "invocation the X macro" to "specify a X construct"
look not to be welcome at this time. So, I'll just have to wait until
the SMI documents are updated so that the MIB module language is
defined independent of ASN.1 language before making the suggestion 
again.

And is it important? Time and again it has been demonstrated by
questions to the SNMP WG mailing list and the SNMP news group that
the ASN.1 baggage is one of the key reasons that users of the
MIB module language find it so difficult to learn and use.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

References:
- RE: usage of "macro invocation" terminology in the MIB review guidelines document
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Index values of zero
Next by Date: RE: Enumerated INTEGER - start with zero or one (0 or 1) ?
Previous by thread: RE: usage of "macro invocation" terminology in the MIB review gui delines document
Next by thread: Index values of zero
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread