RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at standards-trackdocuments but are useful for other documents

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

[ note expansion of subject line :) ]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> I do get the point (I think). At the other hand, I do 
> want this doc to be considered seriously by other people
> doing MIB work and when we get to review such other MIB
> work, I think we'd still try to take these guidelines
> (as you also say below). Can we add maybe something to the
> abstract aka:
> 
>   Although some rules/guidelines may not be applicable to
>   non-standards track or non-IETF MIB documents, a MIB
>   review will still be done with most of these rules/guidelines
>   as the starting point.

I'm not terribly keen on that change as written because (a) it
makes the abstract rather long and (b) because the document
should not make assertions like "will be used" in places where
its use is discretionary.

So, how about this instead:

Abstract

   This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF
   standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.  Applicable
   portions may used as a basis for reviews of other MIB documents.

1.  Introduction

   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.

   [ leave 2nd paragraph as is ]

   Although some of the guidelines in this memo are not applicable to
   non-standards track or non-IETF MIB documents, authors and reviewers
   of those documents should consider using the ones that do apply.

I'm sure this could be improved, and suggestions for doing so
are solicited.

Thanks,

Mike