Hi -
On 2023-02-28 6:39 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
Thanks for the review, Eric (and Lars).
There was no formal MIB Doctor review, but we did receive comments from
Jürgen and Randy, who are members of MIB Doctors (I believe), during the
progress of this draft. Those comments were helpful in deciding on the
language changes within the MIB object descriptions, as well as fixing
some syntax errors.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=J%C3%BCrgen%20Sch%C3%B6nw%C3%A4lder>
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=Randy%20Presuhn
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=tlstm&f_list=opsawg&f_from=Randy%20Presuhn>
I know they weren’t reviewing in the formal MIB Doctors sense. If the
IESG feels a more formal MIB Doctor review is needed, we can ask for it.
My comments were only with regard to linguistic issues in a single
object description. I don't remember reviewing this document in
its entirety, but I could be mistaken.
However, if Jürgen's assessment of the amount of change from the RFC
is correct, then a full-on MIB Doctor review is likely not warranted.
However, it's always a good idea to have someone look carefully at
the changes from a MIB Doctor perspective. I lost count of the times
students came to me complaining that their FORTRAN programs no longer
compiled, and defended their bafflement with "but I only changed one
line."
Randy
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
