Re: Methods, Inheritance, Exceptions, etc. (was: Re: Methods in SMIng ?)

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

I have been following this thread and am happy whatever the group
decides. One point to consider is that eos is looking at a number of
things right now and there might be syngergy (in fact most people are
probably on both lists) at least on the methods point. There really are not
methods in the sense that most of us understand them in the existing
protocols. Perhaps a simple addition would get us a big win if not all
the way there.

just my two cents. given a choice I would like to have them. It would
certainly help with the abstraction that people interested in policy
often talk about.
/jon

> Again, comments up here ...
> 
> Totally disagree on your "disagree".  People already DO "do what the
> protocol does not allow."  You do have methods today - they are just not
> obvious.  All that I would like to do is:
> 1) Make them obvious in the definition/semantics, even if not obvious in the
> protocol
> 2) If EOS or another next gen protocol evolves to support methods, then you
> do have a protocol that handles the semantics more cleanly.
> 
> BTW, I am not arguing to introduce new constructs.  I am arguing to use the
> existing constructs of readable/writable attributes to map the semantics of
> methods.  We do have methods today in MIBs - for example, we request a ping
> and a traceroute in remote ops.
> 
> Andrea
> 


Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/