RE: use of OBJECT-IDENTITY

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

Hi,

If we keep writing things called XXX-MIB then we are misleading people
about what these things should be called. So do the guidelines ignore
this CLR?

Should the mib guidelines be updated to recommend that mib modules make
this distinction in the following naming conventions then?

Should "XXX-MIB DEFINITIONS BEGIN ::=" be "XXX-MIB-MODULE DEFINITIONS
BEGIN ::="?

Should "xxxMIB MODULE-IDENTITY" be changed to "xxxMIBModule
MODULE-IDENTITY"?

There's a reason why people keep calling these things mibs instead of
mib modules.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:56 PM
> To: Harrington, David; David T. Perkins; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); 
> Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: use of OBJECT-IDENTITY
> 
> > [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]
> > 
> 
> I think that this C(onsistency) L(anguage) R(ule) should 
> stay. 'MIB' is today the common alias for MIB, MIB module, 
> MIB object, and maybe other - and even if one usage may be 
> more popular than other, we should aim to make the 
> distinction and use the correct terminology at least in the 
> IETF documents. 
> 
> > dbh
> > 
> > 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
>