RE: reviewer guidelines

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

If Bert gives you any hassles for taking too long, ask him how his review of the Print MIB is coming ;-)

In general, I don't have a problem with the use of the term "standard" elsewhere. I am concerned about its use in section 4.3 because many people make the mistake of thinking all mib objects fall under the 1.3.6.1 subtree. 

SNMP has gained wide acceptance, and other SDOs are now developing mibs. I would like to make sure this is watched for in mib reviews, especially for mib modules developed by other organizations. For mibs where it is NOT under 1.3.6.1 but does get MIB Doctor review, like the IEEE 802.1x mib, I would like to see that explicitly mentioned in the mib document to help alert application developers to any bad assumptions they may have made in their application. 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 4:29 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: reviewer guidelines
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Harrington, David wrote:
> > 
> > I found a couple nits in the 00pre0 reviewer guidelines.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > section 4.3 talks about "standard" objects being under
> > { iso 3 6 1 2 }.  I will point out that that subtree is
> > for IETF standard objects. Other organizations, such as IEEE
> > also produce standards, and they can assign them under their own
> > "standard" branches that apparently are not under IANA control.
> 
> This is true. I lifted the term "standard" (quotes and all) from RFC
> 2578 and kin.  Would it suffice if I add some words to Section 2,
> "Terminology", to clarify that "standard" means "IETF standard"?
> 
> [ Remainder of bugs snipped, thanks for finding them. ]
> 
> //cmh
> 
> P.S.  I plan to have the -00 version out well in advance of the
> cutoff for the next IETF.  I imagine Bert will fire me (or at
> least give me a very bad performance review) if I don't :)
> 
>