Ron,
Whether the counts of the number of objects in the MIB that are included
in the Abstract and Introduciton include in-accessible objects or not is
perhaps why there is a disagreement about whether the counts are accurate
or not.
I considered removing them as you had suggested, but thought it gave the
reader some high level feeling for the MIB. Even if the counts were
absolutely accurate, I don't think anyone would be confused or mis-led.
Looks like I didn't count very well. The total of 18 objects in the
Abstract (line 61) is correct, from the listing of objects in the conformance
section, but doesn't count the in-accessible index objects. So
how about if if I change "18 SNMP MIB objects" to "18 read-only SNMP
MIB objects". That will clarify what we are counting and give the
valuable information in the Abstract that this MIB only defines read-only
objects?
On lines 252 - 254, I need to subtract one from the General Group count
and add 1 to the Job Group count and add "read-only" too. (I had checked
that the totals agreed with the Abstract, but forgot to check each group).
But if people want me to remove the counts from lines 61 and 252-254,
I can do that too.
Comments?
Tom
At 20:35 07/20/97 PDT, Ron Bergman wrote:
>Tom,
>>This version is getting very close! Thank you for all your work in
>getting this completed. I have a number of editorial comments which
>I will send later. First a non-editorial comment.
>>The Abstact (page 1) and the Introduction (page 8) contain counts of
>the objects in the MIB. The Abstract defines the total and the
>Introduction defines the numbr of objects in each group. I feel that
>this is detail that is not needed and can easily be derived by anyone
>who really needs these counts. My fear is that changes to the MIB
>will not be reflected in changes to these counts. In fact, of the
>five counts presented, only one is correct!
>>This same comment was made in my review of version 0.82 and was not
>incorporated in the document. What is the justification for these
>counts? (I believe that you have included them due to the original
>concerns of PWG members that the MIB was too large.) The job of the
>editor will certainly be easier now and in the future without this
>amount of detail.
>>I propose that these counts be removed and am calling for a straw
>vote on this proposal. If anyone can provide a good justification
>for retaining this data, I will withdraw my request.
>> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp.
>>>>