Re: Proposed changes to MIB review guidelines checklist (Appendix A)

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

Hi -

Seems reasonable to me.

Randy

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:45 PM
> Subject: Proposed changes to MIB review guidelines checklist (Appendix A)
>

> Folks --
>
> Since we have decided to eliminate mention of specific MIB compilers
> in the guidelines document, some changes are needed to the
> checklist, specifically item 9 (MIB compilation).  In several recent
> MIB reviews I've used the checklist to organize my comments, and
> I've found that it increasingly awkward to disuss MIB compilation as
> if it were separate from technical content.  So to kill two birds
> with one stone I propose to replace the old items 9-11:
>
>    9.) MIB compilation -- examine all error or warning messages
>    generated by SMICng and smilint when set to maximum complaint levels
>    (exception:  warnings for names longer than 32 characters should be
>    ignored).  In general, error messages (E from SMICng, severity <= 4
>    from smilint) indicate conditions that MUST be corrected, and warning
>    messages (W from SMICng, severity >= 5 from smilint) indicate
>    conditions that SHOULD be corrected.  Judgment is required, however,
>    because there are situations when a diagnostic message will be issued
>    for something that is in fact legitimate (the converse is also true).
>
>    10.) Other issues -- check for any issues mentioned in
>    http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html that are not covered above.
>
>    11.) Technical content -- review the actual technical content for
>    compliance with the guidelines in this document.  It is particularly
>    important to check that DESCRIPTION clauses are sufficiently clear
>    and unambiguous to allow interoperable implementations to be created.
>
> with new items 9 and 10:
>
>    9.) Other issues -- check for any issues mentioned in
>    http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html (other than MIB compilation) that
>    are not covered above.
>
>    10.) Technical content -- review the actual technical content for
>    compliance with the guidelines in this document.  The use of a MIB
>    compiler is recommended when checking for syntax errors;  see
>    http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-review-tools.html for more information.
>    Checking for correct syntax, however, is only part of the job.  It is
>    just as important to actually read the MIB document from the point of
>    view of a potential implementor.  It is particularly important to
>    check that DESCRIPTION clauses are sufficiently clear and unambiguous
>    to allow interoperable implementations to be created.
>
> Please let me know ASAP whether or not this is OK.  It is preferred that
> you send text if you want to request that something be changed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>