Subject: review of snmpconf--pm-10

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:31:34 -0400

Hi,

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 references. 

When will the remaining issues that were raised be addressed?

Thanks,
dbh 

David Harrington
Network Management Architect
Office of the CTO
Enterasys Networks

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 07:43:31 +0000

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.

Thanks

David and Jon

On Monday 06 May 2002 08:31 pm, Harrington, David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> references.
>

-- 
Jon Saperia                         
				
[email-masked]
Phone: 617-744-1079
Fax:   617-249-0874
http://www.jdscons.com/