Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Reusable vs. Implemented definitions (was concrete vs. abstract)

[David Harrington <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

I don't feel that the need for abstract structures has been
demonstrated, and we have no operational experience of the use of
abstract structures in either SMI or SPPI. No examples are given in this
document, and I fear that there may be assumptions made about how
abstract structures would be used that are not clearly identified here.
Before this is made a requirement, I think there needs to be serious
discussion about the possible uses to which they would be put, and how
that might impact the language and the protocols that would use them. 

I therefore believe that 4.2.3 should remain a nice-to-have, not a
requirement.

dbh

"Durham, David" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:08 PM
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > 52: We believe that 4.2.3 should be an accepted requirement and be
> >     moved to section 4.1. We need to be able to distinguish between
> >     reusable definitions and "final" definitions that should not be
> >     further refined.
> >
> [Dave] As I recall, Wes had an issue with abstract vs. concrete and
> understanding what it means w/ respect to a MIB. I don't recall him saying
> it was a bad idea to differentiate between the two, however. So, unless
> someone comes forward against moving this back to an accepted requirement
> (going once, going twice...)