RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-14.txt

Just looking for a clarification of how to interpret the OPS guidelines.
 
"Should be... " is being obscure for me compared with "RECOMMENDED" also  that is at some point "quasy-mandatory" by MIB doctors reviews, That's why I ask the question in a generic way for multiple editors/authors - good to have your perspective.
 
My only recollection of theoretical prefix complains is in smilib for the common model  tool that uses heuristics for dependencies discovery (?) 
 
I got confused if the 'CM' should be added ( recommended) to the SomeOtherName part of xxxZzzSomeotherName  
 
Thanks
 
Eduardo

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Wed 7/14/2004 1:18 PM 
	To: Eduardo Cardona; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ipcdn (E-mail) 
	Cc: Harrie Hazewinkel 
	Subject: RE: [ipcdn] AD review of: draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-14.txt
	
	

	Eduardo writes:
	
	>
	> Bert,
	> For the benefot of other authors/editors in the same path of
	> AD evaluation,
	> I see your comment 3 a little deviation of OPS guidelines Appendix C:
	> - The descriptor associated with a conceptual table should be of the
	>      form xxxZzzTable;  the descriptor associated with the corresponding
	>      conceptual row should be of the form xxxZzzEntry;  the name of the
	>      associated SEQUENCE type should be of the form XxxZzzEntry;  and
	>      the descriptors associated with the subordinate columnar objects
	>      should be of the form xxxZzzSomeotherName.
	>
	> I presume it is a typo and you would like see extrict
	> compliance to those recommendations
	> Any comments?
	>
	Not sure I understand. The idea of the Guidelines is to show that (ideally)
	all columns wthin one table have a common prefix (that sets them apart
	from other objects in the same (or even otehr) MIB module(s) ).
	
	So by inserting the "Cm" for the two objects I listed, that seems to do
	the trick. What did you think that the Guidelines are suggesting?
	
	>
	> Thanks
	>
	> Eduardo
	
	.. snip
	
	> 3. I see:
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6      docsSubMgtCmFilterTable
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1    docsSubMgtCmFilterEntry
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.3  docsSubMgtCmFilterDownstream
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.4  docsSubMgtCmFilterUpstream
	>    I think that for naming consistency, it might be better to rename
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
	>    into something like:
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtCmSubFilterDownstream
	>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtCMmubFilterUpstream
	>    so as to make it clearer (from the name/descriptor) that these 2
	>    objects exists in the docsSubMgtCmFilterTable.
	>
	
	.. snip
	
	Bert

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn