RE: diverging views on adding range constraints in MIB module rev isions

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 10:45 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>...
>> I'm aware that there are some authors that have not been happy with
>> the process (cf. Andrew Smith's crack about "MIB quacks"), and
>> maybe what you are suggesting could help.  Although I won't volunteer
>> to actually draft the text, I'll be happy to provide feedback if you
>> wish to do so.
>> 
>Don't worry to much if someone somtimes uses terms like "MIB quacks"
>or other imflamatory email. I always try to put myself in their
>shoes... and then often I can understand it somewhat. Not agree,
>but understand... with that mindset I can most of the time get
>along with them afterwards. And again, there are exceptions.

Yes, that's just Andrew Smith being Andrew Smith -- a role he
plays quite well ;-)

Notice that objections to the mere suggestion of using a MIB checker
quieted down when I pointed out that MIB writers are free to
check SMI conformance however they want, but they better realize
that SMI conformance is mandatory, not optional.  

IMO, Bert goes way out of his way to provide helpful comments
and explanations to MIB authors when he does I-D reviews.
People get spoiled by all this help and figure it's the
AD's job to provide all the answers.  

>>...
>
>Bert
>> //cmh
>> 
>> 

Andy