[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: adding suggested naming conventions for extension modules
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:17:10AM -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
>
> It sounded good in the abstract until I remembered that we'd
> already had this discussion once before in the thread entitled
> "Naming Conventions for Descriptors (was: comments/review
> <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt>)":
[...]
> Based on the above, I don't think it's wise to make this change,
> unless someone can generate some text that will capture the
> difference between IF-INVERTED-STACK-MIB (to which I'd feel
> comfortable applying the proposed convention) and CIRCUIT-IF-MIB,
> DOCS-IF-MIB, DOT12-IF-MIB, or OPT-IF-MIB (for which I strongly feel
> that this convention is not appropriate). Note that if we do
> include this rule and apply it to the media-specific MIB modules as
> Juergen suggests then we'll need to use a different example than
> OPT-IF-MIB in Appendix E.
So we continue to disagree and we better not put things into the
document.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany