[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Methods in the NIM requirements


thanks you very much, that was very kind.

I'm sorry if I come off too passionate at times, it really
is just a passion for trying to do the Right Thing.

And I welcome the subject matter experts in all fields
working with the modelers to jointly develop an information
model that satisfies all of our needs. I certainly don't
claim to be an expert in the important fields discussed
below, I'm just trying to do my best. As is Andrea and
others. So if there are errors, like the one that Juergen
found, then let's fix them, together. You certainly have my
committment to help and make the model right.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Harrington" <dbh@cabletron.com>
To: <nim@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Methods in the NIM requirements

> comments below.
> John Strassner wrote:
> >
> > comments inline
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Harrington" <dbh@cabletron.com>
> > To: "John Strassner" <jstrassn@cisco.com>
> > Cc: "Weiss, Walter" <WWeiss@lucentctc.com>;
> > <nim@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 10:33 AM
> > Subject: Re: Methods in the NIM requirements
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I believe what Walter has been trying to address is
> > backwards
> > > compatibility with existing practices. We have ten
> > worth of MIBs
> > > to consider, plus additional data models for other
> > protocols.
> >
> > No one is ignoring the MIBs and other protocols. If you
> > would actually look at one of the models, you would
> > that it already maps some MIB information. This was true
> > CIM and DEN 2 years ago, and is true of the Policy
> > that have been recently published as IETF drafts.
> >
> I was commenting within the context of this "theoretical"
> discussion, and I did not study the Policy Information
Model or CIM
> first to see how well backwards compatibility was handled.
I did not
> intend to imply that work which had been done ignored
previous work,
> only that we need to ensure that we accommodate multiple
paradigms, but
> in reviewing this message after your response, I see that
I did imply,
> or rather outright state, that the work done by you and
Andrea and
> others ignored backwards compatibility.
> Given the work you and others have done to ensure
> compatibility with the existing standards, I was way out
of line with
> those comments. I apologize profusely to all involved.
> dbh
> --
> David Harrington         Spectrum for Smart Networking
> dbh@cabletron.com        Cabletron Systems Inc.