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

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi Mike,

Comments inline.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:07 PM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Proposed changes to Section 3 of 
> draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines
> 
> 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.

There are certain things we recommend for IETF MIB modules that would
also make sense for non-IETF documents for MIB implementation reasons.
We ran into some of these doing IEEE MIBs (such as needing US-ASCII
versions, waiting on the assigment of OIDs, etc).
In some cases, we would not want to recommend doing things the IETF
way.

> 
> 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.

To get the ball rolling, I only provided proposed text for section 3.
It would be my intention that proposed text for other sections would
also be provided.

> 
> 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/.

I could see that 3907 was planned, since 3906 etc. were available.
We should probably wait until it becomes available before referencing
it.
Presumably it will be finalized before this document is.

I believe copyright/IP stuff for MIB documents should be looser than
some copyrights/IP to allow for importing documents into derivative
forms, and we should just mention this to other organizations, where
they might not think about that at first.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
>