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

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the in-depth review. 
I realized when I read your review that I hadn't provided you with the
background info on the document.
I apologize for not doing so before you did the review.

Are there any further WG comments on these issues before I submit them
to the ADs for consideration as part of the AD review?

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:59 PM
> To: 'Bridge-Mib (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>