[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scope of NIM
Let me correct a mis-statement I made before anyone else does.
The SPPI is only a "superset" of the SMI for configuration; the
SPPI doesn't address monitoring.
> It's not "would be" but rather "has been", and it's not just been me.
> Rather, the RAP WG has encouraged this through their comments over the
> last 6 or more months (e.g., Juergen's comments in email and in
> Pittsburgh, and comments from Bert and others at the microphone in
> Adelaide). The result is that the SPPI has become what amounts to a
> superset of the SMI. This is the existing, "short-term" effort towards
> convergence that I mentioned at the BOF. It's short-term because the
> RAP WG has agreed that the SPPI is close to Last Call. It has not, and
> will not achieve full convergence - no existing effort will.
> For full convergence a new IETF effort is needed, and I also spoke to
> this issue at the BOF. Specifically, I suggested that the NMRG has
> been working on SMIng (indeed, Juergen presented it at the IETF Plenary).
> One of the roles of the NMRG is to work on topics which are not yet
> ready for standardization, and I believe they have done that with the
> SMIng. Assuming that the IETF agrees that SMIng is the future
> direction for the SMI, then it makes no sense to specify any changes to
> the SMI (which are presumably needed by SMI/SPPI convergence) unless
> those changes are done within the context of SMIng. Therefore, I
> believe that full convergence should be achieved within the context of
> SMIng. To achieve this, we need an SMIng WG. I don't see that NIM has
> any role to play in this, and in fact I think it's counter-productive
> for NIM to contemplate such a role because of the uncertainty and debate
> surrounding NIM (as is reflected in the minutes of the BOF).
> Therefore, I suggest that in the aftermath of the NIM BOF, the topic
> which this mailing-list has to consider is what to do about an
> Information Model.
> In fact, given what "NIM" stands for, it seems to me that this
> completes the full circle back to where this effort started :-).
> > John,
> > Please review the minutes for NIM, SNMPv3, and O&M Area. The general desire
> > for convergence discussed in all three meetings. Further, the SPPI authors
> > (Keith specifically) indicated that he would be working on this in RAP.
> > regards,
> > -Walter
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Schnizlein [mailto:email@example.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 9:49 PM
> > > To: Weiss, Walter; Andrea Westerinen; NIM
> > > Subject: Re: Scope of NIM
> > >
> > >
> > > At 02:22 PM 08/21/2000 -0400, Weiss, Walter wrote:
> > > > ... At the last IETF, there was a strong desire to see SMI
> > > and SPPI converge.
> > >
> > > Whose desire? What sort of convergence?
> > >
> > > SPPI was deliberately diverged from SMI.
> > > What was retained was the ability to automatically generate MIBs
> > > to get the value of parameters (implicitly) set by PIBs.
> > >
> > > John
> > >