RE: use of OBJECT-IDENTITY

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

If you are know about relational data bases, a similar issue comes up.
That is, are you talking about the schema or the instance data.

Also, the document that contains the definition of a MIB module is
not itself a MIB.

When people read technical documents and these people are not experts,
then usage of different terminology to reference the same thing is
confusing. Likewise, it is confusing to use the same terminology
to mean different things. (If I was cleaver, I could probably
provide and example that had to do with a sexual, religious,
or political situation where miscommunication resulted in
comedy. However, I just want to make sure that the documents
that are produced by the IETF are easy to read (they provide
efficient communications), especially by people where english
is not their first language.) 

At 04:33 PM 3/17/2004 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> From bert Wijnen
>> 1.Sect 3.1.1. syasy:
>>       The DHCP MIBs share a
>>  Better:
>>       The DHCP MIB modules share a
>>  There is ONE MIB that is composed of many MIB modules!
>>  This may be true for other places in the doc.
>
>> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com] 
>>   1) "relaxed" usage of the term MIB (it's just sloppy).
>>      Term "MIB tree" is just wrong.
>
>I always advise people to correct this type of incorrect usage, however,
>
>[soapbox]
>I think this whole issue of one MIB and multiple MIB modules is a huge
>CLR. 
>In reality, most users think a mib module is a MIB, despite the constant
>correction by mib doctors.
>When can we get rid of this CLR?
>[soapbox]
>
>dbh