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

["Michael MacFaden" <mrm@kazeon.com>]

> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B Harrington
> As a MIB Doctor in the IETF, I make the same observation 
> Keith once made - the difficult portion of getting a MIB 
> document published is getting through the MIB Doctor review. 

I'm biased but from what I've seen the benefits so far have outweighted
the costs.
More than one MIB module has come in to the process half-baked.

> I suggest we develop tools to help automate this process, to 
> allow authors to check their own documents more easily, and 
> to free MIB Doctors from non-expert-review burdens so we can 
> focus their expertise on providing better advice on how to 
> design a good MIB module.

Yes that would be good to have if it is kept up to date.

One issue I hear from MIB module authors is that they are often confused
by the feedback they get:
A) What changes are required 
B) What changes are nice to have

Mike MacFaden