[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: review of snmpconf--pm-10
Hi David (H)
David thanks for the posting. As you know last call has closed and the
document has been passed to the IESG. That said, we want to make sure that
any issues that you feel have been missed get looked at again.
David Partain and I would like for you to identify which of the 51 are of
concern as soon as you can. We will take these and go over them again with
Steve and either propose a change or explain why we think there should be
no change. If you could send us the 51 items by the end of the week, that
would be a big help.
We will do the review as quickly as possible. Based on the results we hope
to be able to update the document with any clarifications without another
last call. The clarifications will of course be sent to the list.
David and Jon
On Monday 06 May 2002 08:31 pm, Harrington, David wrote:
> I have chosen this week to try to get caught up on some IETF review
> work, including following up on huge documents that I previously
> reviewed, which due to their size I have not had time to re-review.
> In my last review of the policy mib document series, I identified 103
> items I felt needed addressing. I have gone over those 103 items to see
> if they had been addressed in the -10- revision. I find that 75 of the
> 103 items were not addressed.
> The bulk of the 28 that were addressed were spelling and grammar
> corrections, with some rewordings for clarity.
> 24 of the items not addressed were merely suggested rewordings that
> weren't terribly important to resolve, or they were questions about the
> language and expression evaluation. I'll igonore those items, even
> though I still feel the language is a weak spot in this proposal.
> 51 of the items not addressed dealt with document clarity that could
> impact interoperability. Many of the still unresolved 51 items were
> concerns that a management application could not rely on multiple
> implementations to provide consistent support of a feature. Some were
> requests for examples to help make the intent clearer to help
> implementors not do it wrong. Some were requests for re-ordering the
> document to help eliminate some of the need for so many forward
> When will the remaining issues that were raised be addressed?
> David Harrington
> Network Management Architect
> Office of the CTO
> Enterasys Networks