Re: MIB module terminology

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

Howdy,

I don't have a problem with what Andy suggests below.  I better not,
because I've done exactly that in at least one document that I
have edited.  For instance:

   The objects defined in this memo are used in conjunction with
   objects defined in the Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863], the
   SONET/SDH Interface MIB [SONETng], and the 802.3 MAU MIB
   [MAU-MIB] to manage the Ethernet Wide Area Network (WAN)
   Interface Sublayer (WIS) defined in [802.3ae].

Using "MIB module" instead of "MIB" in this context does not seem to
add much except extra words which in my opinion improve nothing.

Another place where it's common to leave off the word "module" is
when one refers to a MIB module by name:

   Thus, the MIB module defined in this memo is a sparse
   augmentation of the SONET-MIB -- in other words, every table
   defined here is an extension of some table in the SONET-MIB --
   and its compliance statement REQUIRES that an agent implementing
   the objects defined in this memo also implement the relevant
   SONET-MIB objects.

Using "SONET-MIB module" instead of just "SONET-MIB" would sound
pretty strange in this countext, at least to my ear.

On the other hand, there are certain uses I do tend to consider
abusive and I pick on them when I see them.  In the second sentence
quoted above, I'd wince if it said "the MIB defined in this memo"
rather than "the MIB module defined in this memo".  And in a MIB
module I'm now reviewing I've asked that things like

  "The value 0, when used in a MIB, [ ... ]"

be changed to

  "The value 0, when used in a MIB module, [ ... ]"

Speaking of which, I better go finish that MIB review ... or should
I have said "MIB module review"?

//cmh

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Bert has cited (several times) the use of the term 'FOO MIB' as
> being incorrect -- it should be 'FOO MIB Module'.  I agree this
> is more precise, but I disagree that 'FOO MIB' is ambiguous.
> 
> The term 'MIB' is hardly ever used alone, meaning the entire
> Management Information Base, composed of every possible MIB Module.
> 
> The term 'FOO MIB' therefore is an acceptable shortened form
> of the term 'FOO MIB Module', because the word 'FOO' indicates
> it is only the 'FOO' portion of the overall MIB.
> 
> I propose that we allow the term 'FOO MIB' and 'FOO MIB Module'
> to be used interchangeably in RFCs.  The short form is commonly 
> used in conversation and documentation, and has been for years.
> 
> I know this is a nit, but I'm bored and have nothing better to
> do than bug the IETF MIB cops ;-)
> 
> Andy