Re: Module names and MIB names

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

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> The DISMAN WG has delivered 
>    draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt
> which includes two MIB Modules with just TCs.
> Their names are
> 
>    ITU-ALARM-TC
>    IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC
> 
> And the latest revision of smilint program flags it with a warning that
> the module name does not have suffix of *-MIB.
> This is based on our (MIB doctors developed) MIB review guidelines:
>   
>    draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt
> 
> Specifically section 4.1 and appendix C.
> 
> Now.... this MIB document was developed by members of teh MIB Doctor team
> and under a WG chair who is also in the MIB Doctor team.
> So this does not feel right.
> 
> We as MIB doctors eat our own dogfood, or we remove such guidelines.

So far so good, I agree.

> So my question that I want answered by all MIB doctors is:
>   Do we keep this guideline or do we do away with it.
> 
> 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)

Before I answer let me point out that I carefully and deliberately
worded Appendix C as a _suggestion_ ... i.e., something that we
think is a good idea, but not something that we strive to enforce as
strongly as something marked with the capitalized keywords SHOULD or
RECOMMENDED.  Here is what the document actually says:

Appendix C:  Suggested Naming Conventions

   Authors and reviewers of IETF MIB modules have often found the
   following naming conventions to be helpful in the past, and authors
   of new IETF MIB modules are urged to consider following them.

   - The module name should be of the form XXX-MIB, where XXX is a
     unique prefix (usually all caps with hyphens for separators) that
     is not used by any existing IETF MIB module.  For example, the MIB
     module for managing optical interfaces [OPTIF] uses the prefix
     OPT-IF and has module name OPT-IF-MIB.

I think that _as a suggestion_ what Appendix C says is quite
reasonable, and I would like to keep it.  Remember, we put
it in because we saw modules from inexperienced MIB developers
(MPLS WG if memory serves) that had names which followed no
discernible pattern.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Do away with it, if folks are going to read the RECOMMENDED
> as a MUST.

I would have to agree with this ... HOWEVER, I don't think that it
is unreasonable to expect MIB Doctors to toe the mark a bit more
strictly than ordinary folk.  And that's why I agree with Bert that
it does not feel right to have the aforementioned DISMAN modules not
following the suggestions in Appendix C.  Indeed, I regret that
smilint did not have a check for compliance with these suggestions
when I was editing ETHER-WIS ... that name was inherited from an
early draft, and I failed to change it to ETHER-WIS-MIB owing to
oversight.

> 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.

I agree completely with these statements.

Mike