RE: SMIng Requirements: instance identification

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hillel D. Nissenbaum [mailto:hillel@alum.poly.edu]

•   An unrelated thought on the requirements prompted by others mentioning GDMO and CIM is as follows.  I understand this document is intended as the requirements for SMIng, but would it make sense for the working group to determine if any existing languages meet the requirements? Without doing any kind of analysis it seems like CIM's MOF (Managed Object Format) would meet these requirements.  I can't help but think it would be nice to avoid adding another management modeling language to my repertoire.  This got me thinking about a previous thread regarding the languages' name perhaps YAMMS would be appropriate ( Yet Another Management Modeling Syntax ) which would open us up to a whole vegetable garden of clever related terms :^)

[Dave] To the contrary... There is also the SMI and SPPI data definition languages.  SMIng intends to integrate these two into one, so ideally the IETF will have one less language to contend with in the long run. It is also a much needed upgrade to the SMI. So we can move from L+1 to L-1. A good trend I think.