RE: Re: Draft-iet-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-09.txt

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
> If you provide us with a list of necessary changes, we can discuss
> them and make them part of the AD review process.

I already did that.  But I'll do it again.

(a) the text in Sections 3.2 was adapted from the original 1493 but
now points to RFCs 3418 and 2863.  As a result it is now inaccurate.
Details were spelled out in previous e-mail responses to Juergen.
If you wish to leave the prerequisites exactly as they were in 1493
then you should probably revert to referring to RFC 1213.  If you
want to leave the references to 3418 and 2863 then please do
something to fix the inaccuracies, particularly in 3.2.2.

(b) undo the following changes (or get an AD waiver from the MIB
review guidelines):

BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
`transparent-only' changed to `transparentOnly' at type used in
`dot1dBaseType'
BRIDGE-MIB.mi2:194 [5] {named-number-changed} warning: named number
`sourceroute-only' changed to `sourcerouteOnly' at type used in in
`dot1dBaseType'
 
> [soapbox]
> Working against constantly moving targets is one major reason why
> these documents have already taken three years. If it wasn't defined
> as a requirement when we started WGLC, I don't want to hear about it
> now.
> [end soapbox]

Excuse me, but you ASKED for this review, and you ASKED from someone
outside the WG to do it.  As an outsider I did not know the details
of the history, or the pre-WGLC requirements, or even that the doc
has been through WG last call, and you did not tell me about that
before I did the review.  So I applied the current MIB review
guidelines.  I am sorry that I could not read your mind.

If you are satisfied that the doc is "good enough" then ship it.  I
don't care.  I have spent enough time on this.  My job here is done
and I will shut up.

Bye,

Mike