My approach was to review them from the perspective of determining if the applicability of the MIB could be clearly understood from the overview text and made sense to me at a high level. Other than that, I always included a disclaimer/assumption that the doc had been reviewed by a MIB doctor.
I think a reasonable example can be found at: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-glenn-mo-aggr-mib-07-don deti.txt And here's one with the style of disclaimer that I mentioned, with nits identified: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-10-ba rnes.txt Mary -----Original Message----- From: Scott Brim (sbrim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:07 PM To: Barnes, Mary [RICH2:B601:EXCH]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Reviews uploaded for Feb 16th, 2006 How does one review a MIB anyway? I can barely spell it. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
