RE: Guidelines for other SDOs

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

Hi,

I would be satisfied letting the document advance in its IETF-specific
form, and then start a revision which deals with non-IETF guidelines,
capturing some of the new MIB Doctor experience in non-IETF mib
reviews.

My personal view is that, in general, in the future revision, using an
appendix to discuss exceptions to the guidelines would be far less
optimal than modifying or qualifying the guidelines inline so they can
be applied in both IETF and non-IETF environments. 

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:12 AM
> To: ietfdbh@comcast.net; dbharrington@comcast.net; 'C. M. 
> Heard'; 'Mreview (E-mail)'
> Subject: 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
> 
>