RE: Status of MIB review guidelines draft

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I prefer option 2) also.

And MIB Doctors, I have still heard in private discussions that
we seem to have still too many CLRs. Pls DO point them out
before we make this doc a BCP. NOW is the time to question ourselves
if this document helps us (I think it does!) or if it still embodies
too much CLRs.

By the way, the IPR documents probably will get finalized soon, 
or at least there was some pressure to try and expedite them
recently. Will keep you informed.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: zondag 18 januari 2004 18:26
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Status of MIB review guidelines draft
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>