Re: Module names and MIB names

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:34 AM
> Subject: Module names and MIB names
...
> pls choose one of these two answers:
>
>  - Do away with it. It is a CLR (Crappy Little Rule)
>  - Keep it. It is a CLR (Consistency Language Rule or some such positive thing)
...

Do away with it, if folks are going to read the RECOMMENDED as a MUST.

I see it as a question of what value would be provided by making the last
four characters of all modules names "-MIB".  The only value I could see
is that someone might want to use it as a clue to the language in which
the module is written, and hope that they don't encounter any GDMO
MIB modules.

However, we've already seen that not all MIBs are alike.  For example,
ones that are merely TC repositories seem to merit special consideration,
both from a standards / progression perspective (what are interoperable
implementations of a TC?)   As another example, are we going to say that
a module that contains only AGENT-CAPABILITIES and the like is a MIB?

To me, a rule that says "the last four characters of all modules names
MUST be '-MIB'" is the epitome of a CLR in the pejorative sense.  For it
to be a RECOMMENDation seems perfectly reasonable, as long as there
is some consensus about the cases where it doesn't make sense.

However, we've done sillier things, so please don't get the impression that
I feel too strongly about this.

Randy