opaque docs [Re: rough consensus of what "population"?]

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

actually I find the data models embedded in MIBs fairly instructive.

It took me some time (years) before I discovered that I could get 90% of 
the information *I* needed from a MIB from reading the table definitions 
and regarding everything else as "reference material, read it if you need 
to know the details".

perhaps MIB review might be problematic because a lot of people don't know 
how to read them, rather than the MIBs being intrinsically incomprehensible?

(my favourite MIB nit: RFC 2155 defines a value for showing that a physical 
line is guarded.... and I do think they mean "guarded by man with gun"....)

                Harald



--On tirsdag, mars 25, 2003 21:24:54 -0500 Thomas Narten 
<narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> writes:
>
>> One thing that I was about to raise in that particular w.g. was whether
>> the majority of the IPv6 wg. is actually *capable* of being able to do
>> any useful reviewing.
>
> Not to pick on you Pekka (you're the messenger here), but a lot of
> people seem to be awfully proud that they don't know anything about
> MIBs and want to keep it that way. MIB work is for MIB doctors, seems
> to be widely held view.
>
> But think about the implication of this view. Most people seem to
> agree that MIBs are important. They get used. They are important to
> operations. WGs even agree that the work needs to be done. Yet,
> actually doing and reviewing MIBs seems to be somebody else's job.
>
> What is wrong with this picture?
>
> Thomas
>