Re: Status of MIB reviewers Guidelines

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

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Mike, where are we? Or better you?

Sorry that I have not kept you up-to-date on this
very slowly progressing project.  I've addressed
most of the comments received against the November
version (and fragments that were posted
subsequently), and the work that remains is to
finish the section on notification definitions (I
need to add something about rate limiting) and to
write the sections on compliance statements and
revisions to MIB modules.  You may have noticed
that some of my recent questions to this list were
directed at closing open issues with regards to
those last two sections.

> Would it not be a good idea to disctribute (at least
> to this list if you do not feel comfortable to put out
> an I-D yet) the current text that you have. I would   
> think/hope that based on that we can try to finalize  
> an I-D that we can start circulating with a wider   
> audience and then hopefully soon use for MIB review,
> bit also for telling MIB DOcument editors/authors to
> check before they submit a MIB document.
  
I think I'll have at least first-cut versions of the
remaining material done by Friday, or over the weekend
at the latest.  I would prefer to wait until then to
submit an I-D.  Since I have been summoned to go on jury
duty next week, I think it would be best to submit
whatever I have done by Sunday at the latest so that
it will be available as an I-D next week.  I'll try to
make myself available to field comments, but it's likely
that I won't be on-line except in the evenings.

So now I have two questions for you, Bert:  (a) is
this plan of action acceptable to you?  (b) do I have
your permission to submit the work an an ops area
draft, or should it go in as an individual submission?

//cmh