Re: MIB module terminology

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 05:58 PM 4/26/2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
>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, [ ... ]"

I agree that MIB module should be used instead of MIB.
I was only suggesting that module can be left out when
referring to a particular MIB module (e.g., FOO MIB).


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

Andy


>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