Re: FW: DS MIB - please review this list...

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Yes, this confirms the need for a "discriminated union" in SMIng.

Regards,
/david t, perkins


At 01:59 PM 2/28/2001 -0800, Durham, David wrote:
>Forwarding this from mibs because SMIng came up. This group should pay
>particular attention to past pain (particularly around addresses) so we are
>not doomed to repeat it in the future.
>-Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:40 AM
>Subject: RE: DS MIB - please review this list...
>
>
>At 04:20 PM 2/28/2001 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>I strongly recommend that we go with the rules (the MUSTs)
>>as specified in RFC2851.
>
>I have changed the next dsmib draft accordingly
>
>>However, if you really do not want to go with those
>>rules... then we should have a debate on the mibs mailing list
>>to get the rules changed and specify the situations in which
>>such rules may be ignored.
>
>I have attempted to have that debate. Sound computer science does not 
>appear to be relevant. What I got back incorporated a distinct 
>non-understanding of the format and construction of IP headers, and used as 
>a centerpiece of its logic "is this so terrible?". I was hoping for an 
>actual discussion; that debate didn't happen.
>
>But it pointed out (again) the obvious flaw in the SMI that disallowed the 
>use of NetworkAddress a decade ago. IPv6 MIBs would have been a slam-dunk 
>if we could have simply added an IPv6 address to NetworkAddress and had 
>IPv6 support bloom all over the MIB, rather than having to redo each and 
>every MIB individually. What this provides is a poor man's CHOICE. I would 
>strongly urge that SMIng fix that once and for all.