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

OK, so Eduardo and I discussed this a bit more off-line, because I was
not sure I was understanding his comments.

I think I now got it. Eduardo I think wanted to express that the 
MIB review Guidelines do suggest that the best solution would be to
rename all of these:
      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
into:
      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  docsSubMgtCmFilterSubDownstream
      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtCmFilterSubUpstream
      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.3  docsSubMgtCmFilterCmDownstream
      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.4  docsSubMgtCmFilterCmUpstream
which is completely inline with the MIB review Guidelines.
My original suggestion for change was not as drastic. 

YES... the above change of names would even be BETTER and more
consistent qith the MIB Review Guidelines. It is not a MUST CHANGE
though. But I would think everyone would agree that following a good
naming convention will be better for all of us (MIB developers) to
avoid name conflicts now and in the future.


Thanks,
Bert 
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: woensdag 14 juli 2004 21:56
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email protected]; [email protected]; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Cc: Harrie Hazewinkel
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] 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