RE: Module names and MIB names

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

Sharon writes (and I believe others have made the same point)
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to equally enforce the rules we know are there
> for a really good reason and the nice to have ones. Not only are there
> diminishing returns, it divides focus, increasing the chances that we miss
> something important while looking at something less so.
> 
> I propose we declare the appendix non-normative and focus enforcement on the
> body of the document.
> 
> I agree we should at least try for the nice to haves and I've already
> created editing instructions to add a -MIB to the module 
> names in question. 
> 
I fully agree. But in my view, the "nice to have" items migth as well
be abandoned completely if we as MIB doctors do not follow our
own "nice-to-have" guidelines.

You know, I can live with a MIB Doctor review missing some of those
nice-to-have ones once in a while. But if one MIB doctor (in an early 
review, which is quite appropriate) points out that it would be nice
to have a mibd module name be suffixed with *-MIB, while other
MIB Doctors are listed as authors of MIB modules where we they do not
do so, then that advice will be seen as real CLR (in the bad meaning).

And then (in my view) we might as well not have that guideline at all,
certyainly not if we make this a BCP.

One of the reasons I want to see a mib-review-guidelines (preferably
as a BCP in the end) is to try and get the MIB Doctor Reviews more
consistent. And so if MIB dcotors do not follow the guidelines, then
other MIB doctors pushing (or even just asking) for it come across
as inconsistent.

Bert
> Sharon
>