Apendices B and C (Was: RE: comments on mib review guidelines 01)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> 
> JS> k) Appendix B says that smidiff does not honor the -i 
> namelength-32
> JS>    switch which was indeed correct. I have fixed this bug 
> and the next
> JS>    release will just do the right thing so I suggest to remove the
> JS>    relevant text.
> 
> BW> I thought we were going to remove the listing of specific tools
> BW> (cause it might look as promoting things or omiting others).
> 
> I have to say (reluctantly) that the comments we got some 
> months ago on
> the mibs@ops.ietf.org list lead me to agree with Bert on 
> this.  Personally,
> I think that the appendices are quite useful, but I don't 
> want to get in
> the middle of a cat fight about this.
> 

I also find the information in appendices B and C very useful. I understand the argument that we want to avoid looking like promoting some tools, and omitting others. On the other hand we want MIB authors to be aware about what we consider to be the appropriate tools for them to use, in order to do the right thing from the start. Would keeping and maintaining this information on a Web page accessible from http://www.ops.ietf.org/, be a better solution? We could draft a neutral text to recommend the usage without promoting them, and in the future we could do easily updates like the ones suggested by Juergen for smidiff.

Dan