RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at standards-track documents

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

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > There is one more place to be changed -- the abstract should 
> > read:        
> >   
> >    This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF
> >    standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.
> >    
> > (s/specifications/standards-track specifications/)
> > 
> > Agreed?
> > 
> Actually... we may be a bit more relaxed on non-stds track,
> but we would use the same set of guidelines when reviewing
> [Informational] MIB documents or MIB documents from other 
> (standards) organisation. WOuld we not?

We would probably apply many of the guidelines, but certain of the
MUSTs/REQUIREDs either wouldn't apply at all or would turn into
SHOULDs/RECOMMENDEDs.  Details would depend on the situation.  For
example, if a MIB doctor was reviewing a MIB module developed by
another SDO that was intended to be published in a standard issued
by that SDO (not as an RFC), then Section 3 would be irrelevant and
some of the stuff in Section 4 would not apply.  If that SDO wanted
to publish its MIB module as an informational RFC, then some of the
stuff in Section 3 would be relevant.  If an IETF WG wanted to
publish a MIB module that it developed in an Informational RFC or a
BCP (which does sometimes happen), then we might well apply all of
the stuff, including the requirement for an IPR section (yes, I know
that RFC 2026 does not require it, but I suspect that the reason is
that RFC 2026 takes the point of view that IETF technical
specifications don't appear in Informational RFCs and BCPs).

The document, however, was not written with such distinctions in
mind.  Its "official" scope is what has to be done for
standards-track documents.  Here's how the intro now reads, with the
latest proposed (and apparently agreed-to) changes included:

   Some time ago the IESG instituted a policy of requiring OPS area
   review of all IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB
   modules.  These reviews were established to ensure that such
   specifications follow established IETF documentation practices and
   that the MIB modules they contain meet certain generally accepted
   standards of quality, including (but not limited to) compliance with
   all syntactic and semantic requirements of SMIv2 (STD 58) [RFC2578]
   [RFC2579] [RFC2580] that are applicable to "standard" MIB modules.
   The purpose of this memo is to document the guidelines that are
   followed in such reviews.

The fix I proposed for the abstract was just to make it consistent
with the introduction.  If it seems wrong, then maybe we want to
re-think the scope of the document, e.g., we might want it to apply
to all specifications that contain MIB modules developed in the
IETF.  Frankly, I would prefer not to do that;  I'd prefer to have
the document capture the review requirements that apply to IETF
standards track documents and leave the other cases to the
discretion of the parties involved (typically WG, AD, and reviewer).

Mike