Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Subject Categories

[David Harrington <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

I agree the note deserves to be eliminated.

I agree this should be considered a requirement because it is part of
SPPI.

I have a question, though. I am of the impression that the RAP WG found
subject categories to be either undesirable or questionable in their
utility. I don't remember what led to that impression. Can an SPPI
expert comment on whether this was a concern, and if so explain what the
concern was? If it is an undesirable feature, just as IMPLIED is in SMI,
I would not like to see it categorized as 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>
> >
> > 60: COPS-PR requires subject categories in order to function. So 4.3.8
> >     is a requirement (at least for the SMIng to COPS-PR mapping) that
> >     must be addressed. We suggest to put it into 4.1 and to remove the
> >     Note (which obviously was written by an SNMP bigot ;-).
> 
> [Dave] Sounds like it is required in the COPS-PR case but not in the SNMP
> case... The text should state as much. Anyone have an issue with moving this
> one back to a requirement (at least for a COPS-PR mapping)?
> >