RE: Time commitments for MIB review

["Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Bert,

What mibs do you currently have that require review? 

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:41 AM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Time commitments for MIB review
> 
> >>>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Bert> - The IESG (in general) and I (specifically for MIB 
> reviews) have
> Bert>   the experience that is we post a "who volunteers for 
> review of X"
> Bert>   to the review-group (like mreview) mailing list, that 
> that most
> Bert>   of the time does NOT work. Occasionaly it does, but 
> not very often.
> Bert> - Asking someone specific to review does work better.
> Bert> - The RTG directorate has an agreement that the ADs can 
> just assign 
> Bert>   a document to a specific member of the directorate 
> and that person
> Bert>   is then responsible to respond with a review within 2 weeks.
> Bert> 
> Bert> So I am wondering if that RTG agreement could work for 
> us as well.
> 
> Bert, I apologize for not responding earlier.  I've been in crunch
> mode at my day job owing to an impending shipment deadline, and I
> have not been able to work off my e-mail backlog until now.
> 
> >>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Harrington, David wrote:
> David> I have concerns about a two-week deadline. My company pays my
> David> salary and sponsors my participation, and often work 
> due for the
> David> company must take precedence over mib doctor reviews. I would
> David> have difficulty guaranteeing a two-week turnaround whenever you
> David> want it. This is especially true for mibs that had no mib
> David> technical advisor to ensure that a mib is not poorly designed
> David> and then a huge poorly designed mib is presented for mib doctor
> David> review. The mib doctor task for a mib that needs 
> massive changes
> David> is much more difficult than a review for a well-designed mib.
> David> The Printer MIB jumps to mind, and recently the DHCP mib
> David> warranted a massive overhaul.
> 
> I would like to echo Dave Harrington's concern that a 2-week deadline
> is not always possible to meet.  Sometimes it is possible to do that
> when the MIB module is well-designed -- a few years ago I was able to
> turn around the ifTopN module in 48 hours -- but that is not always
> the case.  You might recall that I took several weeks to do a
> comprehensive review of the optical interface MIB, and I had a lot
> of time to spend on that one since I was unemployed at the time.
> 
> Bert> I have a long backlog of MIB documents that need MIB 
> Doctor review.
> Bert> Over the next week or so, I would like to start 
> assigning documents
> Bert> to the various MIB Doctors to try and clean out that backlog.
> Bert> 
> Bert> Comments? Thoughts? Other ideas to make the MIB review process 
> Bert> go faster?
> 
> David> How about setting a minimum yearly commitment to remain a mib
> David> doctor? I'm not sure how many mibs are produced yearly or how
> David> many mib doctor reviews you want for each, but I see little
> David> problem with committing to perform, say, six reviews per year.
> 
> I think I could live with this, idea subject to the proviso that
> there will be times (such as now) when I will have to beg off owing
> to heavy-duty outside committments.
> 
> David> I have concerns about being "assigned" mibs. It is much easier
> David> for me to justify the time to perform mib doctor review if it
> David> relates to my company's business.
> 
> In my case I have to do all the reviews I do on my own time since my
> current employer does not not do anything related to SNMP and MIBs.
> But I am still better qualified to review some MIBS rather than
> others.
> 
> One idea that comes to mind ... when it comes time for a MIB doctor
> to do a review, allow him or her to choose from among the ones
> that currently require review.  Of course there is nothing wrong
> with stating your preference when you make the request.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>