Re: MIB doctor reviews and common format for RFC Editor Notes

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

[ MIB doctors cc'd to solicit more comments ]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Jean-Francois Mule wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> A couple of thoughts on RFC editor's notes in mib internet drafts.
>
> The intent of this email is to potentially enhance
> draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt, to facilitate the
> work of the RFC editor, and the work of co-authors when checking
> the nroff version in the final step of editing.
>
> It seems that we use various forms to indicate RFC editor' notes:
>  - in mib module:
>      -- Note to RFC editor: please assign XXX
>    (sometimes, the spelling is even "rfc editor" or "rfc-editor", ...)
>  - in the reference section, per above guidelines draft and your
> comment below:
> >     ************************************************************
> >     * NOTES TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) *
> >     * ...                                                      *
>  - etc.
> 
> My concern is, it's really hard to do a grep on those comments
> to address them or to create a vim syntax file (VI improved) so
> that they pop up in red during the final reviews.
> 
> Is it worth imposing some kind of common convention?

Speaking for myself, I'd rather not because it makes another rule to
enforce, but if enough other folks feel the other way I'll happily
defer to those wished.  FWIW, when I am doing a MIB review I don't
squawk when people deviate from the above forms as long as the notes
look obvious enough for the RFC Editor and the IANA liason to find.

Mike