RE: Status of MIB review guidelines draft

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

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I would favor option 2) [i.e., issue draft with updated
> references plus any other updates that seem to be necessary
> based on what has transpired in MIB reviews over the past six
> months].  As long as we have the opportunity to improve the
> document, I do not see why we should not do it.  It would be
> good if you can post in advance the changes that you intent to
> make, so that people can react if they are not happy with
> something.

Actually I didn't have any particular updates in mind, since the
document has worked pretty well for me in the few MIB reviews I have
done since the -02 version was posted in August.  But if other
people have changes to suggest based on their experiences, then by
all means they are encouraged to do so, and I'll plan to incorporate
whatever is deemed desirable by a rough consensus of the MIB
Doctors.

Mike