Re: Naming Conventions for Descriptors (was: comments/review<draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt>)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> C M Heard writes:

: Appendix E:  Suggested Naming Conventions
: 
:    Authors and reviewers of IETF MIB modules have often found the
:    following naming conventions to be helpful in the past, and authors
:    of new IETF MIB modules are urged to consider following them.
: 
:    - The module name is typically of the form XXX-MIB, where XXX is a
:      unique prefix (usually all caps with hyphens for separators) that
:      that is not used by any existing IETF MIB module.

Well, in many cases we end up with multiple modules for a given
technology these days. So in fact, module names usually have the
structure XXX-YYY-MIB where XXX should be helpful to identify the
technology being modelled. Now, I do not suggest to put all this into
the document - but right now, the text might mislead people to believe
that module names are just XXXX-MIB and that everything before -MIB is
to be used as a prefix, which I think is not what we generally do.

:    - The descriptor associated with the MODULE-IDENTITY invocation is
:      typically of the form xxxMib or xxxMIB, where xxx is a mixed-case
:      version of XXX starting with a lower-case letter and without any
:      hyphens.
: 
:    - Other descriptors within the MIB module should start with the same
:      prefix xxx, i.e., should be of the form xxxSomeOtherName.

See, it is unclear here whether xxx here still refers to XXX from the
XXX-MIB example. Perhaps it is more helpful to point things out at a
concrete example which we all like?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>