RE: Disappointment with guidelines doc (was: Re: consensus call sect 4.4)

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

The discussion on a possible SMIv2.1 is not within the
scope of this project or the MIB review mailing list.

It is part of teh SMIng mailing list if anything.
It has been discussed there in the past, and then we did
not want to do such a maintenance release.
Maybe the situation has changed by now... but yet, the
discussion is not in scope for this MIB-review-guide effort
or the MIB review mailing list.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: woensdag 5 februari 2003 20:30
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Disappointment with guidelines doc (was: Re: consensus call
> sect 4.4)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, David T. Perkins wrote:
> > Please note that I do respect the tremendous amount of effort
> > that has been put into the guidelines documents by Mike Heard.
> > And I'm sorry that I do not have the time to further support his
> > effort with detailed comments on the consequences (including
> > interactions) with the suggestions. I've been quite disappointed
> > with some examples that have been used for clarifications.
> 
> I'm not sure which examples in the document you are disappointed
> with, but I must confess that I am disappointed with most of
> Section 4.  Midway through the effort it started to become clear
> that much of the work in there was a re-hash of stuff in the SMIv2
> documents, and that the effort would probably be better spent in
> doing a maintenance revision of those documents.
> 
> I think that the most valuable parts of the guidelines document are
> in Section 3 and the "non-technical" parts of Section 4 (i.e., the
> stuff that tells folks what we expect in ORGANIZATION, CONTACT-INFO,
> and REVISION clauses).  Having all this gathered into one place is
> useful, and if we can get the document authors just to do that stuff
> it will be a BIG win for MIB Doctors and the ADs because we can then
> concentrate on the technical aspects.  The technical stuff about
> MIBs, however, SHOULD be covered adequately by the SMIv2 docs
> themselves without need of more guidelines.  Note the echo here of
> some of Keith's comments.
> 
> > That is, I believe that an SMI v2.1 is needed that incorporates
> > Mikes work and adds support that addresses current SMI limitations.
> 
> Back in August the consensus (in the discussion triggered by the
> controversy over writable versions of CounterBasedGauge64) was
> that all the new features should be deferred to SMIng.  I've been
> monitoring that list by checking the archives regularly, and it
> seems to have been silent for quite a while.
> 
> //cmh
> 
>