RE: Another hijacked SMI number

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Why do not you make this comment on their WG list? You can expect that their first response will be that 'we just want this MIB to compile', but than you can do your pitch and explain them what is wrong and point them to the guidelines document. 

Maybe pointing to the guidelines document (especially after it becomes a BCP document) could become a standard charter item for any WG doing SNMP MIBs. Something like:

'As this WG is defining MIB modules as part of its charter deliverables, the recommendations in RFC .... will be followed'.

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: 05 February, 2004 6:19 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Another hijacked SMI number
> 
> 
> It seems that we have had a very hard time getting the message
> across that using hijacked SMI numbers in Internet-Drafts is not a
> good idea.  The PWE3 WG seems to be particularly incorrigible.  The
> following is from <draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-00.txt>, by
> Senthilkumar Sathappan, Marichetty Venkatesan, and Thomas D. Nadeau:
> 
> PW-ATM-MIB-DRAFT-00 DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
> [ ... ]
>       pwAtmMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
> [ ... ]
>       ::= { experimental 979 } -- To be assigned by IANA
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
>