What to do with individual I-D draft-aromanov-snmp-hiqa-04.txt

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

OK, in the list of "Expired RFC-Editor 4-week timeout", 
there is draft-aromanov-snmp-hiqa-04.txt. It is on my desk
(has been for a while... too long indeed).

The initital revision 00 caused some email echanges between 
RFC_Editor and myself, and we both agreed it should not be 
published (that was RFC-Editor proposal in fact, he was checking
with me). So now it came back. So I left it there for a bit.
Recently one of my MIB-Doctors pointed me to it and said he
was in favor of the doc. So I went and looked. 
It has various issues that I discussed with that MIB-doctor,
and we agree at least on a number of things:

- The title claims more than justified.
  It says: Developing High Quality SNMP Agents
  But.. 
  - the doc itself is (in my view) not high wuality itself.
  - the doc discussus only a small part of the whole problem
    space and the many tricky things in SNMP agent development
  - Am I supposed to check the C-code in there? I had some
    questions when I looked at it. My mib-doctor is willing
    to check it.
  - The author often speaks like "It is recommended", where
    it seems to make more sense to say "I recommend"
- The doc touches on a few things that the author has tried in
  SNMPv2/v3 WGs and where he sort of always lost. He does now
  describe these things (which is OK as long as he makes clear
  it is his view) ... but if such makes the agent "high qaulity"
  is not necessarily shared by the (SNMP) community. Of course
  I could go and check that with the community.. but I am sure
  we will not get consesus (not even very rough) on that.
- There are a few (in my view, and my MIB doctor agrees) things
  that I think are in conflict with the SNMPv3 Stds track docs.
  I need to point those out, no matter what.

So I am not interested in trying to get serious SNMP-community 
review of this doc. WHat I think we (I) can do is:

- list the few issues that conflict with SNMPv3, and that need
  to be fixed.
- potentially list some questions/concerns that I have that made
  me wonder if things are indeed correct or not. In fact some
  are plain confusing instead of clarifying (and you need to
  have serious SNMP skills to fill in the gaps).
- request a title change to something aka
         Considerations for SNMP agent developers
  or
         Aleksey Romanov's views on Developing High Quality SNMP Agents
- If he does not accept the 2nd of the two proposed titles, then
  add an IESG note that clearly states that this was not reviewed
  in IETF and so are the views of the author.

Besides that, one of the security ADs should check if they are happy
with the Sec Considerations section.

I will put this doc on next weeks telechat agenda.

Thanks,
Bert