[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Modelling the modelling process (Re: Methods)
At 10:06 15.05.2000 -0700, Andrea Westerinen wrote:
>I agreee with your modeling requirements (fudge small, magic standard and
>"can't be done" small). I guess that I don't understand the statement
>"noting that you lose fractional megabits(?) in mapping to CIM is a property
>of the mapping mechanism". If you mean that the lots of stuff can't be
>mapped to the CIM Network Model today - I agree. But, IMHO, this is more a
>function of the model still being in its very early stages than the mapping
>issues.
>
>Can you be more specific? Then, I can understand your concerns.
>Andrea
sorry; I was doing the common but indefensible practice of inferring
properties of other work from other people's comments, and misremembering
them into the bargain.....
the text I was starting from was
>2. If the Speed value actually fits in a uint32, then the mapping is clear.
>If the Speed is greater than a uint32 with units of bps, then reality can't
>be reflected in RFC1213's attribute.
>3. The goal was to map both the MIB and DMI, where DMI defined the property
>with units of Mbps.
RFC1213's successors have multiple mappings of speed depending on the size
of the number.
I interpreted your DMI comment as saying that DMI couldn't define the speed
of a 64 Kbit line very well - and then swapped CIM and DMI in my argument.
My mistake!
(Is the DMI speed attribute an integral megabits, or a float? Is there a
representation attached to the speed in a CIM model? See how far I am from
knowing what I'm talking about....)
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no