Re: namespace collision

[Frank Strauss <strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

Hi!

David> We have a namespace collision.

David> Can we please differentiate the output of this working group, called
David> SMIng, from the proposal that has been accepted as our starting point,
David> also called SMIng? Can we change one of them, or require that the
David> proposal always be called the "SMIng proposal"? Can we simply call the
David> output SMIv3, since the previous versions of the SMI standard are called
David> SMIv1 and SMIv2 and it would make sense to call the next version SMIv3?

For now, I think it's ok talk about the `SMIng' as the WGs targeted
output and the `SMIng spec (proposals)' as the spec documents that we
currently have. But I think that this determination is not that
essential.

Calling the final output SMIv3 is probably not optimal, since it could
let people think that it is just a successor of SMIv2 and not of SPPI
(and probably other data modeling techniques).

David> "new means that the issue is considered a new feature which is not
David> required in SMIng" - does that mean it is not required as part of the
David> output of this WG or is not required by the current proposal?  

This text is from your list you sent us on March 22. ;-) I didn't
change it. The original text from Juergen was "`new feature' means
that the issue is considered a new feature which is not required in
the first version of SMIng".

Of course, the whole requirements discussion is concerned with *the*
SMIng. It would not make sense to claim requirements from one and not
from the other. Requirements are general. And the current SMIng spec
proposals are an attempt to achieve these goals to the best extend and
conscience of their authors.

 -frank