Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Group references

[David Harrington <dbh@enterasys.com>]

Hi,

I think this may have been rejected as unnecessary. It is already
possible to specify references such as this without having formal
notation for it. I believe consensus was that the functionality is a
requirement, since it is found in both PIBs and MIBs. In the quest to
keep the language simple, I think the addition of a *formal notation*
for this functionality was rejected as a requirement, just as formal
notations for many other constraints and relationships were rejected as
requirements.

dbh

"Durham, David" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:08 PM
> > Subject: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > 84: The Motivation of 4.3.28 is a bit unclear and the Notes are to
> >     some extend wrong. We also believe that this belongs into 4.1 or
> >     at least into 4.2. Note that the notes say that there are no
> >     issues with this requirement. We suggest the following replacement
> >     text:
> >
> [Dave] I guess there were no SPPI supporters at the interim to push for
> this. Since TAG_REFERENCES & TagIDs are already part of the SPPI, you are
> probably correct that it should at least be nice-to-have. I also believe the
> applications MIB makes use of a similar concept, albeit in a less formal
> way. Any objections to saying it would be nice to have a formal way to
> reference a set of attributes as a group in the SMIng?