Re: Updating the MIB Review guidelines - my comments part 2

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

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Here are my comments about the remainder of the doc. Just a few :-)
> - probably better to reference rfc3291bis instead of 3291.
>   Juergen is fixing a last issue and then it goes to RFC-Ed queue
>   (i.e. it has been approved by IESG modulo a fix for the last issue)
> - 3191bis has a few extra TCs that we probably want to list in appex B
>   (and I should add them to www.ops.ietf.org web pages

I saw the announcement for the -05 draft of 3291bis earlier today. I
had figured to cover this with a note to the RFC Editor to update
the reference to RFC 3291, but since there are new TCs to add to
Appendix B I will do as you (and Dan) request.

> - We may want to add the TCs from RFC3705 to app B. and to the web page
>   of course.

OK, I'll do that.

While I am at it, I recall that I made a deal with Juergen some time
ago to include PhysicalIndex and PhysicalIndexOrZero from
<draft-ietf-entmib-v3-04.txt> _provided_ that the latter made it to
the publication queue.  I see from the I-D tracker that it is still
in the AD Evaluation state.  How close do you think it is to
being approved?

> That's it. Thanks for your work on this Mike!

And thanks to you for putting up with my stubborness.

Now, as regards the last few loose ends:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, C. M. Heard wrote:
> This is a call for consensus (or lack thereof) on the following change:
> 
> Add to the following paragraph the sentence at the end of Section 4.5:
> +    problematic and is NOT RECOMMENDED.  Also NOT RECOMMENDED is the
> +    practice of setting up another subtree under mib-2 or tranmsission
> +    for the IANA to administer, because it offers no technical
> +    advantage to compensate for the increased administrative workload.

We don't seem to have consensus for that change, so I will not be
putting it in.

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > 2. I wonder if in the title should we should s/MIB/MIB Document/?
>
> My preference would be to leave it at is, but I could be talked
> into "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents"

I'll go ahead and make that change.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > So we should not make ourselves dependent on 2223bis. Or so is
> > my personal (actaully pretty strong) opinion.
>
> I suppose that we could try to cut the tie with 2223bis [ ... ]

I have already agreed to remove most of the citations of 2223bis, but
the ones in Section 3, Section 3.5, and Appendix A are difficult to
remove without a fair amount of rewriting.  What I would like to do is
issue an updated draft with all the other agreed-upon changes and
then revisit this issue if necessary after we have some "running
code" experience with the new set of changes.

Mike