[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scope of NIM
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: Scope of NIM
- From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:55:30 -0400
- Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:53:29 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
I would agree with your points. However, I
would clarify (1) to consider first and foremost my earlier question.
Specifically, if we say that this work is applicable to only data
structures we don't really leverage all the OO concepts, but the results
will be readily applicable to current IETF protocols such as SNMP, COPS,
and LDAP. In contrast, if we broaden the scope to include the remaining
OO concepts, we expand the applicability beyond the IETF and data
oriented protocols. The price for this expanded scope is greater
challanges in proving the value to IETF protocols (more complex mappings
and algorithmic mappings), and a lower probability of success as gauged
by interest amoung the IETF participants at the BOF. We have to ask the
question: do we want to shoot for the ideal risking that it will never be
used (n+1), or do we want to shoot for more consistency with what we have
risking obsolesence when(if) non-data driven management interfaces become
the rage in the IETF.
I vote for
working on something that will work at the risk
of leaving some ideal (and possibly never used) things out. This
has been the philosophy of the IETF in the past as opposed to some
other standards organizations which do take the ideal approach.
I think that our track record speaks for why I think the IETF
approach is better.