[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Andy's review of draft-ietf-snmpconf-pm-09.txt

[I will re-read Andy's comments, but I noted a couple of patterns and I 
think that addressing the reasons for the patterns may help.]

1) A number of the comments about document structure, insufficient 
information, and other "errors" appear to arise from a single cause.  In 
our efforts not to mandate a single implementation strategy, we seem to 
have forgotten to give the reader enough information to actually do the 
implementation.  I overlooked this (and presumably so did the authors) 
because by this time in the process I have lots of assumptions in my 
head.  However, given how frustrating it is when I have to work with other 
under-specified RFCs, I think that we need to look at putting a lot more 
descriptions of possible implementations into the document.

2) Andy comments repeatedly about strings appearing in places where they 
"are not allowed".  It appears that Andy missed (and therefore we need to 
emphasis better) the fact that these strings are supposed to be processed 
on the front end.  The fact that we are not mandating a front end, but are 
describing all our examples as if there is a smart front end does produce a 
tension (rather like the on in (1) above) that should be addressed.  I 
actually muchly prefer the use of the text strings, as if the examples used 
explicit numeric OIDs I would have no idea what the examples were doing.

Joel M. Halpern