Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-19: (with DISCUSS)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:37 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'The IESG'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Dan Romascanu's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-
> mib-19: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> I'm sorry, I should have responded to this sooner...
> 
> > 1. The latest change in the MIB module fixed the pre-allocation
> problem but
> > introduced another one. The LAST-UPDATED and REVISION clauses
> remained
> > unchanged at the level of the 2009 version. Now there are two sets of
> MIB
> > modules with the same dates in these clauses but different contents.
> This is not
> > acceptable. Please issue a new version with these clauses updated.
> 
> Dan, you're wrong.
> 
> The last-updated and revision clauses in Internet-Drafts have no
> meaning as the MIB modules in I-Ds are not to be implemented. There was
> no 2009 version and no previous MIB module exists.
> 
> I have lost count of the number of times MIB Doctors and ADs have
> beaten me up over this in MIB modules I have written, but it was often
> enough that I got the message.
> 
> Quite how these fields get set in the published RFC defeats me, but I
> suspect the RFC Editor should set them to match publication.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 

[[DR]] Adrian,

Do you happen to have at hand an example of such a beating in the past?

I agree that the final published version is to be set by the RFC Editor IF they perform any changes during the editing process. However, intermediate versions need to be discriminated as well IMO, and the argument that 'MIB modules in I-Ds are not to be implemented' is a good advice which is not always followed. 

MIB Doctors - can you help here with your advice?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan