RE: MIB module terminology

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 11:28 AM 4/28/2003, David T. Perkins wrote:
>HI,
>
>This stuff is important. And the people that it affects the most
>are people trying to gain an understanding of SNMP-based management.

I don't think it's that important.
I agree with Dave H. -- everybody (outside some people
on this mailing list) use the term MIB to mean MIB module.
There is no confusion because the literal meaning of
the term MIB (the collection of all MIB modules) never
comes up in documentation or conversation.

I really don't care if the term changes or not. We will
still use 'MIB' in our company documentation, emails
with customers, etc.

Andy


>I see big confusion understanding the concepts. Part of this is
>due to some book and article authors incorrectly describing
>SNMP-based management concepts, and part is authors of standards
>documents taking short cuts.
>
>So, for me, I believe that standards documents should have a somewhat
>higher level of formality that used in conversations and email by
>experts in SNMP-based management.
>
>At 06:19 AM 4/28/2003 -0400, Harrington, David wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>The only people I ever see get concerned by the plural "MIBs" or the distinction between MIB and mib module are the SNMP protocol designers. Everybody else in the world, including developers, field personnel, and operators, seem to understand that it MIB means mib module, and MIBs means multiple mib modules. 
>>
>>I vote we eliminate the CLR that says one must always distinguish MIB and MIB module.
>>
>>dbh
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
>> 
>> ...  when I read some
>>documents, it is really strange how they use the term MIB and MIBs.
>>Specifically the plural "MIBs" get people confused I think. 
>
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins