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

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Saperia [mailto:saperia@jdscons.com]
> 
>     1. I agree with your points about learning from our past 
> and keeping that 
> in mind as we evolve the SMI. We are in danger of adding significant 
> cruft/complexity to something that novice engineers already find more 
> complicated than necessary. Novice engineers are the ones 
> that most often do a 
> lot of this work. I observe that much of this cruft and 
> complexity existed 
> prior to the desire to merge SMI and SPPI.

[Dave] Absolutely, simplifying the language is an important goal. Would not
enabling reuse and removing some of the weirdness and arcane rules of the
SMI help achieve this? 
> 
>     2. One of the points that I made several times before the 
> WG formed, and 
> since at WG meetings is that some of the changes (you listed 
> some) seem to 
> offer little practical value and will be disruptive. If I 
> thought that adding 
> semicolons at the end of each line or changing the 
> capitolization rules would 
> advance the state of management, I would be be all for them. 
> I just have not 
> been convinced that they will.

[Dave] Please note that the requirements do not require semicolons nor
specify capitalization rules. It sounds like you are ready to start
discussing the current language proposal, not the requirements. 
> 
>