Requirements comments...

["Anderson, Todd A" <todd.a.anderson@intel.com>]

I'd like to add my 2-cents to the requirements discussion.

First, for issue #2, I would highly prefer a C-like syntax (or a CORBA 
IDL-like syntax given than CORBA IDL is similar to C-like syntax) to an
ANS1-like syntax.  I think that C-like syntax is clearer and more
straight-forward.

For issue #39 (arrays), I prefer the IDL verbage of "sequence" instead
of array since array implies something of fixed length to me.  I think
that sequences are a necessary part of SMIng since I am constantly
frustrated by the proliferation of tables I have to create to simulate
sequence semantics.  It seems to me that without sequences, the number 
of associations would also have to increase.  I think it is just clearer
and more natural for those with a programming background to think of
sequences of data instead of breaking up the data structure into
multiple locations.

Could someone provide some clarity on issues #42 and #43?  An issue that
seems similar to #43 is the case when sometimes I want to execute several
table changes atomically but other times I may not want to make those
changes atomically.  Is the language an appropriate place to deal with
this sort of behavior?  Are there any modeling issues related to this
sort of transaction?  My instinct is that there isn't for this type of
transaction but for the case where you must always change several things
atomically then the language is an appropriate place to state that.  How
would the other type of transaction be handled then?

Finally, for issue #49, I am glad to see that the spec includes float data 
types in the language.  I find these types especially useful for TSPECs
and fractional link bandwidth partitioning.

- Todd