[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Latest posted agenda for SMIng meeting at the 49th IETF...
- To: "David T. Perkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Latest posted agenda for SMIng meeting at the 49th IETF...
- From: Wes Hardaker <email@example.com>
- Date: 04 Jan 2001 16:20:24 -0800
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Wes Hardaker'" <email@example.com>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:20:57 -0800
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: Network Associates - NAI Labs
- User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2 (Notus)
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:49:54 -0800, "David T. Perkins" <email@example.com> said:
>> Right. Do we require the new language to supply only minimal changes
>> to a given current code base? Or can we rethink not only how we
>> represent data textually but binarily (I love making up words) as
>> well? Must the textual data *always* be mapped into the *exact same
>> structures* that exist today? Must SMIng -> SMIv2 mappings *always*
>> be possible?
David> On the above, I believe that you must be able to map back to a
David> valid SMIv2 MIB module.
I don't mean that you can't do it at all. I mean to ask is it a
requirement that all *new* modules written in the new language be
EG, SMIv2 can be translated into SMIv1 minus counter64s. Is a similar
requirement presumed for SMIng?
There are two cases:
1) Can you use the new language to write a specification that is
2) Can the new language make use of features that will not be
backwards compatible when *new* definitions are being written.
I'm talking about case #2. Case #1 is a necessity that I think we all
[ rmon example deleted ]
David> If you created SMIng modules with this approach then when you
David> tried to reverse map them to SMIv2, you couldn't
You wouldn't do what I'm talking about for old mibs. *Only* for new
ones. You would *force* column enumeration with the old ones to
ensure backwards compatibility. I think I'm getting repeatedly
misunderstood about this point.
"Ninjas aren't dangerous. They're more afraid of you than you are of them."