RE: Submission of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt>

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

Thanks Mike for posting the document.

W.r.t.

> The next steps that I'd like suggest -- subject to Bert's
> approval -- are as follows:
> 
> 1.) Since this guide is supposed to document what we look for in MIB
> reviews, we should continue continue discussion on this list and
> updating the draft until we get a document that accurately reflects
> how we think MIB reviews should be done.
> 
I'd say... let us start using this doc as our own guideline when 
reviewing MIB documents from now on. It will reveal other issues,
or it will raise questions etc... which we can discuss as we are
trying to apply/use the guidelines. So we get "running code" so to 
speak.

> 2.) Once milestone #1 is achieved, I think it would be appropriate
> to have an open discussion and pseudo-WG last call on the
> mibs@ops.ietf.org list, with document respins as needed.
> 
We could actually also post (to WG chairs list and mibs list) that
we have a I-D that we are now trying to apply/use when evaluating,
and we can ask people:
- to try and check their won docs before they submit
- send any comments/questions while they do so
This will create another "geneticlaly independent" implementation 
of running code  so to speak.

Once we feel happy and have found good results, we can do an
(4 week) IETF Last Call and make it either a BCP or Informational.
BCP will get better review, and it will support us better when
we want to push back based on the content of this document.

> 3.) Once milestone #3 is achieved, submit the results to the IESG
> for consideration as a BCP.
> 
> Bert, what do you think of this roadmap?
> 
Sounds good in principle... I'd like some experience before we were
to go for BCP as explained above.

> //cmh

Thanks again,
Bert