FW: Draft minutes from the May SMIng Interim:

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> Sorry, the intention was to do copy the WG mailing list
> 
> Bert
> ----------
> From: 	Durham, David[SMTP:david.durham@intel.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:12 PM
> To: 	'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
> Subject: 	RE: Draft minutes from the May SMIng Interim:
> 
> Hi Bert, 
> 
> Please note that you did not send this email to the WG, if that was your
> intention (see below header information). Comments inline.
> 
> -Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 4:49 AM
> > To: Durham, David; Mingot, Sandra (Sandra)** CTR **
> > Subject: RE: Draft minutes from the May SMIng Interim:
> > 
> > David, thanks
> > 
> > For equirment 11, did we not decide/suggest that someone was going to 
> > bring this up in the RAP WG to see if we could indeed get to a
> > common indexing scheme
> > 
> [Dave] After the meeting I had a conversation with Juergen who, I believe,
> brought up the issue. It appears that the only thing that the SPPI can't
> do
> that SMIng can do is EXPANDS, 1:n table relationships through indexing.
> This
> can be rectified by the SPPI adding the EXPANDS keyword. Besides this, the
> integer indexing itself does not appear to be a problem because
> rowpointers
> and instance pointers work just fine for either case. 
> 
> > At requirement 21, the RFC to be listed is RFC2579, not 2079
> > 
> > 
> > W.r.t. requirments being removed or changed to a "SHOULD' or such..
> > 
> > I suggest to keep also the rejected requirements, add a short 
> > explanation
> > why we
> > reject them and then put them all in a separate section or an 
> > appendix. That
> > way
> > we do not loose the information and reasons for our decisions.
> > 
> > Pls try to get the top 5 or 10 MUST requirements in a 
> > separate section.
> > Then have a section with "would be Nice if we could add" and 
> > then at the
> > end those that we rejected.
> > 
> > Please also let me remind teh WG: we have this Requirments do 
> > on our agenda 
> > to be finished (i.e. WG Last Call) in May 2001. Only a few 
> > days left to do
> > another
> > rev and then a WG Last Call.
> > 
> > Bert 
> > 
> 
>