Re: Target times for MIB Doctor Review

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

>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Bert> One of the things being discussed is that MIB doctor review
Bert> (one of the situations where some ADs put the doc in "expert
Bert> review" status as the substate in the I-D tracker) can take
Bert> enourmously long.
Bert> 
Bert> The main reason is that it is often difficult to find a
Bert> reviewer, and then the doc sort of by defaults ends up in my
Bert> queue (which is too long already).
Bert> 
Bert> So the suggestion is that we would like to have a target of
Bert> MIB Doctor review to be done within 30 days of the request.
Bert> 
Bert> I want to hear from you how to deal with that?

>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) replied:
Dan> 2. MIB advisors should be assigned to WGs who have MIB
Dan> modules in their charter.

YES!  And it should be the responsibility of the people who want to
get the WG charter approved to find the advisor/reviewer.  The
advisor/reviewer should be someone acceptable to the OPS-NM AD, but
there shouldn't be any other a priori restrictions.

I really think that this step is the key.  It can be implemented
today, even without #1 below (although that, too, is a good idea).

Dan> 1. Provide MIB compilation and CLR checking tools publicly
Dan> available on the IETF Web site. MIB submissions should be
Dan> subject of proper compilation requirements by using the
Dan> publicly available tools, same as I-Ds can be checked by
Dan> using idnits. This would allow for consistent compilation by
Dan> all authors and lead the WG chairs to verify the syntax
Dan> problems of MIB modules submitted in their realms without
Dan> being MIB experts.

When I did MIB reviews I often found that the stuff that was largely
mechanical (items 1-9 in the Appendix A of RFC 4181) took up an
enormous amount of time.  Having automated tools to do as many of
those checks as possible AND pushing the responsibility back on the
authors to prove that those automated checks had been done would
greatly reduce the amount of effort required from a reviewer and
would allow him or her to concentrate on the non-mechanical stuff.  
I think this would make the reviewing job more rewarding (or at
least less tedious), and that should help get more people willing to
be reviewers.

One political issue that I see here is that the IETF will end up
with an "official" MIB checker/compiler, and that may raise cries of
"foul!" from some vendors.  I think the right answer to that is to
say "tough".

Good work, Dan.  I hope the IESG goes for your idea.

Mike