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

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

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:35:20PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> My understanding is the the policy is an IESG policy so a review is 
> done for the IESG. The OPS ADs (or in current reality one of them) is
> organizing these reviews for the IESG. Hence, I believe that saying
> 
>   [ ... ] the IESG instituted a policy of requiring MIB review
>   of IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.
> 
> is just right [ ... ]

If you can accept "expert review" in place of "MIB review" there,
then we have something we can all agree on.  Here is the proposal:

(a) leaving the abstract as is, modify the introduction as shown
above;  the text would then read like this:

Abstract

   This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF
   standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.  Applicable
   portions may used as a basis for reviews of other MIB documents.

1.  Introduction

   Some time ago the IESG instituted a policy of requiring expert review
   of IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB modules.  These
   reviews were established to ensure that such specifications follow
   established IETF documentation practices and that the MIB modules
   they contain meet certain generally accepted standards of quality,
   including (but not limited to) compliance with all syntactic and
   semantic requirements of SMIv2 (STD 58) [RFC2578] [RFC2579] [RFC2580]
   that are applicable to "standard" MIB modules.  The purpose of this
   memo is to document the guidelines that are followed in such reviews.

(b) s/current pool of OPS Area MIB reviewers/current pool of MIB reviewers/
in Section 4.2 and in Section 4.8, as previously proposed.

The only other places where the words "OPS area" appears (other than
in the running footers) are in checklist items 3 and 6 in Appendix
A, which provide URLs for the MIB boilerplate and security template.  
These are pages live on the OPS area web site.  Since the text only
makes passing reference to this fact ("latest approved ... from the
OPS area web site"), I don't see any reason to change it, and don't
propose to do so, unless/until the URLs themselves change.

Will this make everyone happy?

Mike