[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-03.txt
i am not sure whether your note is addressing me or jon
js>I do not understand your arguing about the SMIng syntax in the context
js>of the SMIng requirements document. Requirements 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 say
js>that the syntax has to be human friendly and machine friendly. I hope
js>we all agree with that.
i am not arguing about anything ... frank is trying to get me to argue
again, i respectfully decline
>If you want to discuss the pros and cons of the syntax in the current
>SMIng specification, then that is fine with me. But let us do that in
>a separate thread since I fail to see how such a discussion is related
>to the requirements document currently under last call.
the reason the two are linked is because draft-ietf-sming-req-03.txt
links them on the bottom of page 4, the top of page 5, and throughout
section 4 of the document
the document makes them related
furthermore, the requirements document adopts the nomenclature of
the current nmrg proposals ... such as the renaming of notifications
to events ... which i am sure you will recall discussing with me
recall the seattle interim meeting:
you said "what is another name non-objectionable name for event?"
i said "we don't need another name for event -- we already call it
notification and can continue to do so ..."
however, i agree that we can and will discuss these topics once we
pare down the list of requirements to a manageable set