RE: ACTION REQUESTED: please review draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

I think that my response is more on the lines of 

> - I read it and agree with the content, but have no time
>   for detailed comments

I should add that for some exceptions that have caught my attention, I might actually did and find some time to comment or ask questions :-)

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: ACTION REQUESTED: please review 
> draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> This mailing list is for a core set of MIB doctors/reviewers
> 
> As you may have guessed from my many postings on this
> topic, I find this very a very important document to get
> right. We have had too many reviews in the past where we
> would (all in good faith) say different things about 
> particular objects and one reviewer would push back
> on something that another did not care about.
> 
> I think it is important that we try to get a common 
> understanding (as much as possible) on what to look for
> in MIB reviews. And this document can be a helpful 
> instrument for that.
> 
> So ... I know there are a numer of people on this list
> that have not yet reacted at all. We need your 
> input/opinion too. We need everyone's opinion.
> 
> So please, do all take the time to read/evaluate this draft.
> Pls do send an reply (so we keep subject line) with your 
> response to this list (or send it to me private if that is
> what you prefer). Pls indicate:
> 
> - I read it and agree with the content, but have no time
>   for detailed comments
> - I read it and do not agree... pls provide details
> - I do not have time to read it, but I trust it will be OK
>   and I will do reviews based on these guidelines in the future
> - I want to read but need more time till xxx (pls try to give
>   it time within 2 weeks)
> - I would rather get removed from the MIB reviewers mailing list.
> 
> Sooner is better than later. I'd like us to try and get a
> rev 1 out before the deadline of the next IETF (Mar 2nd, Sunday)
> This rev 1 should be good enough so we can actually start using
> it so we get "running code" experience.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
>