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

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

Hi!

Jon> I have seen nothing that suggests any need for the types of
Jon> changes you describe. There is not problem to be solved that I am
Jon> aware of that could not be solved with minor adjustments to the
Jon> ASN.1 we currently use. I believe many of the changes that are
Jon> proposed are gratuitous.

There are many motivations, e.g. requirements 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.7,
4.1.14, 4.1.38, 4.1.42, 4.1.45.  Since I don't know which changes you
refer to, I cannot give a more precise reasoning.

BTW, regarding SMIng again as a derivative of ASN.1 would be a mistake,
in my opinion.

>> 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.

Jon> With regard to the requirements list. I would have much preferred
Jon> and EOS like approach with a very few focused high benefit
Jon> items. I have provided my examples for the SMIng work (table
Jon> relationships - inheritance, etc.). These are analogous go the
Jon> bulk retrieval topics on eos. That is targeted improvement for
Jon> big gain.

Gain to specific aspects. There are other aspects, that are reflected
by the current requirements draft as well.

 -frank