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

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

> Hi!
> 
> >> [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? 
> 
> Jon> Dave, I believe that could be done without creating an new syntax.
> 
> (I assume, when you talk about the syntax you mean some major
>  characteristics of ASN.1, e.g. uppercase keywords and non-explicitly
>  terminated macros. Formally, we'll need a new syntax (grammar) anyway.)

I have seen nothing that suggests any need for the types of changes you 
describe. There is not problem to be solved that I am aware of that could not 
be solved with minor adjustments to the ASN.1 we currently use. I believe many 
of the changes that are proposed are gratuitous.
> 
> Reuse is just one aspect. There are other aspects of simplification
> (e.g. 4.1.38 and 4.1.42) and completely different requirements that
> all list a motivation section, which we should discuss if you don't
> agree. This does belong to the requirements discussion and should
> happen now.
> 
> There is no requirement that demands for a new syntax.  I admit that
> I'm in favor of a new syntax to address some of the requirements of
> the current requirements draft. But the discussion how to achieve the
> requirements does not belong to the pressing requirements discussion.
> 
>  -frank
> 
With regard to the requirements list. I would have much preferred and EOS like 
approach with a very few focused high benefit items. I have provided my 
examples for the SMIng work (table relationships - inheritance, etc.). These 
are analogous go the bulk retrieval topics on eos. That is targeted 
improvement for big gain.

> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/