Update for WG on status of draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-05.txt

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Dear ipdvb WG,

This email contains a short update on the progress of the DVB-RCS MIB 
(submitted as an individual informational document). The document has 
already started MIB Doctor review, but was returned to the authors to 
apply corrections. In the mean-time, we have seen also a change of I-D 
boilerplate and a change of responsible AD (now Jari Arkko).

The authors have recently submitted an updated revision of the draft 
(-05 in the I-D archive), and therefore I shall request the MIB Review 
to resume.

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst


> May we have a new version that addresses this naming convention issue so 
> that we can continue?
>
> It looks like the document has been sitting for a few months due to this 
> hangup, apologies for not forwarding this issue on to you immediately 
> (store and forward through an overloaded AD is not the best manner of 
> getting a message from one person to another, but that's another issue - 
> it was my ultimate responsibility and for that I apologize).
>
> - Mark
>
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > */Mark,/*
> > *//* */Can we have this issue fixed? /*
> > *//* */The recommended naming conventions for MIB objects and modules 
> > are described in Appendix C of RFC 4181. In general, RFC 4181 should 
> > be mandatory reading for everybody writing and reviewing MIB 
> > documents. /*
> > *//* */Dan/*
> >  
> >
> >     
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     *From:* Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net]
> >     *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:09 PM
> >     *To:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan); MIB Doctors (E-mail)
> >     *Cc:* Mark Townsley
> >     *Subject:* Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Call for a volunteer to
> >     
> > reviewhttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-04.txt 
> >
> >
> >     Only having taken a very very cursory browse of this doc, I DO
> >     have one
> >     SERIOUS concern. And that is that all the object names
> >     (descriptors) do
> >     not follow ANY naming convention.
> >          I would URGE them to prefix all their descriptors with a 
> > common prefix
> >     that will help avoid naming conflicts in the future.
> >          I am not sure if/when I will have time to do a close review.
> >     But I would recommend that they do that proper naming FIRST before
> >     anyone
> >     spends too much time on this
> >          Bert
> >
> >         ----- Original Message -----
> >         *From:* Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <mailto:dromasca@avaya.com>
> >         *To:* MIB Doctors (E-mail) <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
> >         *Cc:* Mark Townsley <mailto:townsley@cisco.com>
> >         *Sent:* Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:47 PM
> >         *Subject:* [MIB-DOCTORS] Call for a volunteer to
> >         
> > reviewhttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-04.txt 
> >
> >
> >         MIB Doctors,
> >
> >         We need a volunteer to perform a MIB Doctor review on the I-D
> >         
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-combes-ipdvb-mib-rcs-04.txt
> >         .
> >         This is an AD-sponsored contribution targeting Informational RFC,
> >         sponsored by Mark Townsley.
> >
> >         Thanks and Regards,
> >
> >         Dan
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> >         MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org <mailto:MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org>
> >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors