Subject: Re: JMP> Counts [of MIB objects] in version 0.83 Specification

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:06:50 PDT

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.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Ron Bergman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:13:15 -0700 (PDT)

Tom,

Why not make your life a little easier and just remove the counts?
This is a detail that is easy to obtain for anyone who really needs
this information.

	Ron