Re: comments on mib review guidelines 01 - draft-ietf-ops-mib-rev iew-guidelines-XX-20030707.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>; "Juergen Schoenwaelder (E-mail)" <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:53 AM
> Subject: RE: comments on mib review guidelines 01 - draft-ietf-ops-mib-rev iew-guidelines-XX-20030707.txt
...
> Now to respond to some off-list comments from Juergen:
>
> > - "OPS area review"
> >
> >   Since the policy that MIBs are reviewed is an IESG
> >   policy (as the first sentence in the Introduction says),
> >   I think "IESG MIB review" is more appropriate.
>
> I don't agree, since the reviews are done in the OPS area, and
> reasonably so, since that's where the expertise lies.
>
> > Regarding my original comment, I think it all boils down to the
> > following two phrases (and variations of them):
> >
> > - "OPS Area MIB reviewers"
> >
> >   The actual established term is "MIB doctor".  But if
> >   we want a more formal term, then I would say that
> >   "IESG MIB reviewers" is more appropriate since we do
> >    MIB reviews for the IESG.
>
> No, the MIB doctors are advisors to the OPS AD in charge of network
> management.  See http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-doctors.html
>
> > Perhaps another solution would be to just talk about "MIB reviewers"
> > where the text currently talks about "OPS Area MIB reviewers" and
> > to talk about "MIB review" instead of "OPS area review". I actually
> > like this solution since this document might very well be used by
> > other organizations for their reviews. Does this make sense?
>
> That I could live with ... but the following part of the intro
>
>  [ ... ] the IESG instituted a policy of requiring OPS area review
>  of IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.
>
> should stay as is, since it accurately reports the facts (and
> similarly for the abstract, if my proposal above is accepted).
> The specific changes would be:
>
> s/current pool of OPS Area MIB reviewers/current pool of MIB reviewers/
>
> in Section 4.2 and in Section 4.8.
>
> Will these changes, along with the revised abstract I proposed
> above, be satisfactory to everyone?
...

I think the point is that it's not a question of *who* is doing the review,
but rather one of *on whose behalf* the review is being done, so I
think this is going in the right direction.

Randy