[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SMIng Requirements: instance identification
- To: sming@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: SMIng Requirements: instance identification
- From: "Robert Moore" <remoore@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:56:52 -0500
- Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:51:07 -0800
- Envelope-to: sming-data@psg.com
I have what I think are two independent concerns with
the discussion of instance identification in the -00
SMIng Requirements draft:
1. The document appears to rule out from the beginning
the possibility of having SMIng use the kind of
hierarchical naming used by X.500, LDAP, and CMIP.
By requiring that each instance contain all the key
attributes necessary to identify the instance
uniquely, don't you rule out an approach where
instances contain just enough information to
have uniqueness within the scope of a superior,
which in turn contains just enough information to
have uniqueness within the scope of *its* superior,
and so on?
If this is intentional, that is, if the goal is to
state as a requirement on SMIng that it SHALL NOT
use hierarchical instance naming, then I think you
need more argument for why this should be included
as a requirement.
2. In the last paragraph on page 6 and the first
paragraph on page 7, the idea is introduced of
"un-keying" in a subclass an attribute that was
identified as a key attribute in a superclass.
This runs counter to at least my OO intuitions; in
fact, it sounds like a vestige of the "partial
inheritance" idea that was mentioned earlier, but
(I think) withdrawn. Do the authors have some
specific case in mind, that's driving the inclusion
of this "un-keying" as a requirement? If so,
maybe the WG can come up with a better way to
handle this case.
Regards,
Bob
Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
remoore@us.ibm.com