RE: Time to Revise the TC list

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

W.r.t.
> > Here are my thoughts:
> > - many MIB documents have no plan to ever advance further than PS.
> >   so for those (the most of our MIB documents) it is moot
> > - my personal take is that if TCs get taken out (unchanged) to a 
> >   separate document, that it would be acceptable to advance that to
> >   the next level on standards track (assuming the TCs meet the
> >   requirments for advancement).
> 
> If the TCs live by themselves in a separate MIB module -- which is
> often, but not always the case -- then I agree with this.  However,
> TCs that reside in a MIB module with other definitions cannot be
> moved into another MIB module, since that would break MIB modules
> that import those TCs.  So it's not possible to split such TCs out
> into a separate document.
> 

Maybe I should have said "copied" instead of "moved". 
I know it would cause a name clash, but I do not see any technical
problems with that. Over time, when the old MIB gets revised, the old
definitions can be obsoleted.

But again, it would be only one possible way of dealing with the
dependency if one doc wanted to advance.  Not ideal, but one way.

> > - It is (in my view) ALLWAYS possible to take a copy (renamed) of any
> >   TC and include it in a document that wants to advance and then
> >   use the renamed TC. It means no semantic change of any object and
> >   it means no change on the wire.
> 
> Technically true, but historically we've discouraged people from doing
> this, because we don't like people reinventing the wheel.

It is not re-inventing, it is pure plagiarism!.
I agree we should sicourage it. But if it would otherwise block some
document from advancing, it is worth thinking/discussing it.

> I think that's
> the right policy, but it does point out one way that the standards track
> is broken.  (The newtrk WG is chartered to fix such problems, but has
> not made much progress.)
> 
> > But again, I don't think this type of text should be put on that 
> > web pages of Common/Generic TCs.
> 
> Agreed.
> 

Thanks,
Bert
> //cmh
> 
>