Re: Proposed changes to Section 3 of draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines

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

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
> These guidelines would benefit from being written so they can be
> applied by other organizations, including other SDOs and vendors
> that develop their own MIB modules.

[ detailed proposals snipped ]

David, these are interesting proposals, and thanks for including a
detailed list of proposed changes.  I do have my misgivings about
trying to write MIB document guidelines for other organizations --
as you probably inferred from my earlier response to Dan, I think
that is a job for those other organizations -- but I am willing to
live with whatever the consensus is.  At this point I'd like to hear
what other people have to say, so I'll keep my comments brief.

First:  all of Section 4.3 and all but the first paragraph of
Section 4.5 are IETF-specific, and so (I think) are items 1-9 of the
checklist in Appendix A.  It would be helpful, if we are going to
generalize the document in the way that you propose, to have some
text for whatever updates are needed to those sections.

Also, regarding this:

> RFC 3907 is referenced, but does not appear to exist yet.
> 
> For non-IETF documents, it would be good to advise other organizations
> to consider the importance of allowing organizations to make copies,
> with restrictions, for management purposes. 
> I suspect that is what is discussed in RFC 3907. 

RFCs 3907 and 3908 will, when published, replace RFCs 3667 and 3668
respectively.  The are currently in AUTH48 review.  The actual
differences between 3667 and 3668 are some small differences in
wording.  If you want to see the current "proof" documents they
are in ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/.

Thanks,

Mike