[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Guidelines for other SDOs
My (personal) view on it:
- We started this effort mostly because I (as AD) but I think also all of
us (as MIB reviewers) wanted to achieve:
- reduce the need to review all sorts of little nits that authors
can check/fix themselves once we have a guidline.
So that is to reduce our workload
- make our reviews more consistent, no matter who is the MIB doctor.
- improve the quality of MIB documents in general, but specifically for
IETF.
- get agreement on some unclear issues
- Once we got the initial document out (iirc feb 2003!) we decided we wanted
- review from our intended users/customers (specifically wg chairs, mib doctors
and MIB authors/editors)
- experience (test running code) from our own MIB reviews
- that resulted in several new revisions (each one being better than the
previous, or so I think).
- I think we are getting close to having the doc in good shape for a BCP for
how we do MIB work in IETF. And I think it would be good to get that
out as a stable doc (RFC) rather sooner than later. (I kept the rev 03
in "AD-evaluation" so it would not expire... not the proper use of the
ID-tracker, but it works ;-)).
- W.r.t. the use of this doc by other SDOs and enterprises:
- I agree that it would be good to make the doc as usable as possible by
other SDOs and enterprises.
- I would think that it probably would be good to also have some "running code"
or "running practice" before we would publish an RFC as BCP.
- It would be good to have such a BCP reviewed by otehr SDOs and enterprises
to see if they agree and find it usefull as BCP.
- so that would potentially delay this doc another year ?
So in conclusion, I would prefer
- to finish this asap (as mainly an IETF BCP)
- to add an appendix as suggested by Mike
We can then also (if there is energy)
- start a new revision that does address the otehr SDOs and Enterprises better
- or do a separate doc for them
- ...
Makes sense?
Bert