[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt: Reusable vs. Implemented definitions (was concrete vs. abstract)
>>>>> David Harrington writes:
David> I don't feel that the need for abstract structures has been
David> demonstrated, and we have no operational experience of the use
David> of abstract structures in either SMI or SPPI.
The SMIv2 does not have reusable "attribute groupings" and thus
every definition of concrete and not abstract. I think there is an
accepted requirement that we need reusable "attribute groupings"
- so I am not sure what you are arguing here.
David> No examples are given in this document, and I fear that there
David> may be assumptions made about how abstract structures would be
David> used that are not clearly identified here. Before this is made
David> a requirement, I think there needs to be serious discussion
David> about the possible uses to which they would be put, and how
David> that might impact the language and the protocols that would use
With reusable "attribute groupings", some of them will exist just to
be reused (e.g. a five tuple filter) while others will exist to be
instantiated (an ifEntry). (In fact, I believe it is more important to
flag those "attribute groupings" that are "final" in the sense that
they will be instantiated in protocol mappings - but that is probably
part of a solutions discussion.)
I believe we need to distinguish between these two categories of
"attribute groupings" in the language.
Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>