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

[Pekka Savola]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > 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?

Yes, I agree it is a problem -- there is no way specialized,
area-independent MIB doctors could do all the work on MIB's.

A fundamental problem may be that MIB's look a bit scary.  A formal data
structure and model is not for the faint of heart.  So, it's something
that, until you get started (do a few reviews of them at least), is not
something you look forward to and subsequently want to avoid.

So, it seems like folks expect that there are some decently-MIB-clueful
w.g. members, and expect them to do the thing.  Or so it seems..

I don't know whether/how this can be fixed.  Perhaps if the descriptive 
parts and data structures would be separate that might help -- but then 
again, maybe not.

Sigh.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings