RE: Status of MIB review guidelines draft

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

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 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.

One thing that I have seen -- it came up during the AD review of
draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2495bis-05.txt -- is that there is some
variability from one reviewer to another in how zealous we are in
enforcing all the SHOULDs in the review guidelines document. Another
is that there are occasionally some differences in how we interpret
the various documents that apply -- by which I mean not just the
review guidelines document, but also RFCs 2578, 2579, and 2580.  
It's not clear to me that such things can be completely addressed by
any document set;  that is partly what this list is for.  I'll
mention a couple of specific items in some subsequent e-mails and we
can see whether they are simply issues of policy or interpretation
that we should settle by discussion or whether they warrant changes
to the guidelines document itself.

> 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.  Let's not forget that rfc2223bis is also a prerequisite.

Mike