Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] comments on draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-04

Hi -

>From: Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
>Sent: Apr 21, 2015 1:07 AM
>To: Randy Presuhn <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] comments on draft-ietf-manet-report-mib-04
...
>This is inappropriate to ask for a MIB doctor review for a MIB module 
>that doesn't even compile.
...

I wrote:

>> This is *not* a full MIB doctor review; in my opinion some
...

Sorry if that misled anyone.
The reasons I CC-ed the [email protected] list as well as
the [email protected] list were:

  1) to let folks outside of [email protected] know that *someone*
     had looked at this

  2) to make sure that no one had a problem with my suggestions
     regarding how the work could fit in with disman infrastructure
     and accepted MIB practice.

I think the timestamping issues in particular are of general
concern, so if there is consensus among practitioners regarding
the best way to deal with those issues beyond what we did with 
the Log MIB (the nlmLogTime and nlmLogDateAndTime hack)
it would be good to be able to make a specific recommendation to
the manet folk.  That would be a lot more helpful than my comments,
which amount to "this is busted."

Kinda tangentially...
   (3) Given the current emphasis on Netconf, and this module
       is primarily about configuring functionality, is anyone
       prepared to argue that this MIB module should instead be
       a Yang module and managed via Netconf protocol?

I think it would be a terrible fit, but that's not my problem.

Randy