draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt is now available (fwd)

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

In case any MIB Doctors are not on the list.  The OPS Area web site
has been updated, BTW.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
To: Mibs Mailing List <ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt is now available

Greetings,

The latest "Guidelines for MIB Authors and Reviewers" draft, which
was submitted earlier today, is now available at

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt

I expect that the official announcement will arrive shortly, and I
have asked that the links on the OPS Area and IETF web sites that
point to the -02 version be updated ASAP (in fact I just got a note
from Bert Wijnen stating that he is working on that right now).

The most significant changes to the document were (a) to bring the
sections that discuss copyrights and IPR notices into alignment with
RFCs 3667 and 3668 (which supersede RFC 2026 Section 10);  (b) to
bring the sections that discuss IANA considerations into compliance
with http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html (which supersedes
http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html);  and (c) to bring the sections
that discuss references into compliance with an RFC Editor policy
requiring that all references have an actual citation in the text.
Because these things change the criteria that will be used when
reviewing MIB documents, the MIB Doctors decided not to send the
document to IETF Last Call at this time, but rather to get some more
"running code" experience with the document to see if we have gotten
these things right.

There are also some relatively minor changes that were made based on
our experience in applying the guidelines.  In particular: text was
added to Section 3.5 to remind authors to consider privacy
implications when writing Security Considerations;  text was added
to Section 4.5 admonishing authors NOT to use SMI numbers that have
not been properly allocated by the IANA;  and Section 4.9 was
clarified to state that adding an OBJECT clause specifying support
for the original set of values of an enumerated INTEGER or BITS
object is needed only when write access is required by the
compliance statement.  Full details are in the Revision History
section of the I-D.

Please send comments on the document to the ietfmibs@ops.ietf.org
mailing list.

Thanks and regards,

Mike
--
C. M. Heard
heard@pobox.com