[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt
>>>>> Jon Saperia writes:
Jon> 4.1.3 Human Readability. This requirement is not specific. Which
Jon> people do you mean? And for whome do you wish to solve a problem?
Jon> I do not think this is a major problem that merits they type of
Jon> change implied.
4.1.3 only says that SMIng must be human readable. What is wrong with
that? Note that the objectives document does not specify the syntax
of the solution.
Jon> 4.1.4. Machine Readability I think the motiviation for making
Jon> easy to implement SMIng parsers is misplaced. As stated
Jon> previously this does not seem to be a major issue.
I am not going to debate whether this is a major or minor issue.
But I do not understrand what is wrong with simplifying parser
implementations in general. Especially since I know too many SMI
parsers that are just broken.
Jon> 4.1.5 This seems based again on the need to optimize for
Jon> parsers. A non problem in the companies that I am familiar with.
I frequently answer questions because people are not able to figure
out from the SMIv2 documents what the precise syntax is. Providing an
ABNF grammar for whatever syntax SMIng will use is thus useful not
only for parser implementors but also for people who use this language
to write MIB modules.
Jon> 4.1.6 Is it still the working group consensus to align SPPI and
Jon> SMI? At an open area meeting (the ietf before the London IETF). I
Jon> got the impression from our ADs that these two would be allowed
Jon> to grow independently. This general goal seems counter to that
This is what the charter says. During the WG meeting, people were
asked what the preferences are between (a) merging SMIv2/SPPI and (b)
enhancing the state of art in network management data modeling. The
outcome of this discussion is reflected in the current objectives
document on page 4:
It has been recognized that the two main goals of (a) merging
SMIv2/SPPI and (b) enhancing the state of art in network management
data modeling can lead to conflicts. In such cases, the SMIng
working group's consensus is to focus on enhancing the state of art
in network management data modeling.
Jon> The requirements as currently stated will have a large
Jon> implementation and training cost and will distract vendors from
Jon> producing better management software and confuse customers.
You are obviously arguing about a certain solution - not the
objectives per se.
Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
<firstname.lastname@example.org> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>