Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-03.txt

[Frank Strauss <strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

Hi!

Jeff Case writes:

Jeff> 1.  there are too many requirements

I think, this statement itself is way too general. Please look at each
single requirement in Section 4.1 of the current I-D that you don't
feel comfortable with and *argue* about why it should be moved to 4.2
or 4.3.

Jeff>     [...] revisit the basic premise:
Jeff>     that a totally new definition language is needed to align
Jeff>     the SPPI and PIBs with the SMI and MIBs ... the market for
Jeff>     SPPI and PIBs peaked in calendar year 2000 and is already on
Jeff>     the wane

Jeff>     XML is the new silver bullet hoping to replace SMI and MIBs
Jeff>     ... SPPI and PIBs have already joined the long list of
Jeff>     would-be replacements for SNMP that didn't make it in the
Jeff>     market ... example: how many products are under development
Jeff>     at a router vendor, say cisco, that implement COPS/PR &PIBs?
Jeff>     snmp and mibs? [...]

So, are you talking about the requirements document or the SMING WG
charter?

Jeff>     too many requirements ... they need to be reduced, prioritized

That has already been done.

Jeff> 2.  the document is out of sync with the real requirements of the market

Jeff>     the stated requirements are irrelevant to much of the real market
Jeff>     and they have tuned out this process in droves

Again, be precise, please. Which stated requirements are you talking
about?

Jeff>     i find parts of the nmrg work to be of high quality, however, i
Jeff>     find that many parts of the proposal to far from appropriate [...]

So, are you talking about the requirements document or the currently
proposed specs which are far from being complete?

Jeff>     we also need to coordinate the work in revising the smi with
Jeff>     the work to enhance the protocol, i.e., the EOS working
Jeff>     group

I agree, that this should be taken more closely into account with the
SNMP mapping specific requirements.

Jeff> 3.  the document does not reflect some of the input provided to the
Jeff>     working group

Jeff>     for example, at multiple meetings of the working group, including
Jeff>     having made the investment to participate in the seattle interim
Jeff>     meeting, i strongly argued that the new sming grammar need to be
Jeff>     roughly, i.e., imperfectly, but pretty darn closely, translatable
Jeff>     to SMIv2 format, as opposed to mapped to the protocol as described
Jeff>     in 4.1.15, which i continue to strongly believe is wrong-headed

I wonder why you recognized 4.1.15 but not 4.1.16: Translation to
other data definition languages, e.g. SMIv2, *is* a requirement.

I disagree that translation to another data definition language is
more important than mapping to the protocols. The reason is simple:
Data definitions that can be translated but not used in a protocol are
quite useless in contrast to those that can be used but not
translated.

Jeff> i would be happy to provide additional details with anyone
Jeff> interested in engaging in further civilized discussion of these
Jeff> points

Of course, the working group is interested. If you want to know the
name of a person who's interested, take mine for example. But please
post your input to the mailing list, so that everyone is aware of the
discussion, right in the sense of your own statement:

Jeff> whether you agree or disagree, please do not remain a member of
Jeff> the great silent majority -- we need you to re-engage with the
Jeff> process


In Summary:

- Please differentiate to which document you refer, the WG charter,
  the requirements document, or the current specification proposal.

- Please come up with *precise* concerns (requirements in Section 4.1
  that you don't like) and *argue* about them.  Statements like ``too
  many requirements'' or ``i strongly disagree with the position taken
  by the document'' don't help a lot.

 -frank