Re: Separation of protocol and information model

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Allen, Keith writes:

Keith> The designers of SNMP were confident they could design a
Keith> protocol with all the operations that management applications
Keith> would ever need, so they didn't enable MIB designers to add
Keith> their own.  Now you think this group can do a better job, and
Keith> granted this group's list of operations is longer.  We're still
Keith> afraid, however, that it won't work out too well.  Thus, we're
Keith> proposing a more object-oriented approach that lets MIB
Keith> designers define which objects can be applied to object
Keith> classes, and to extend the set of operations if necessary.  Had
Keith> the SNMP designers done this there would be no RowStatus and we
Keith> might all be using SNMP for configuration.

Starting with a well understood set of operations and adding more over
time is IMHO not a bad engineering approach. SNMP's failure was to
simply not add the required protocol operations (and transports I have
to add) when it became clear they were needed. I hope netconf will do
better.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>