[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt
Joel, who do you the think the reader will be? I'm interested in your
opinion of who constitutes the majority of MIB readers. Is it enough to
state it simply as readable to the majority of MIB readers?
Other than a bit of scoping this requirement to a particular audience, would
you accept readability as an objective?
BTW, while it makes sense that the objectives should scope such statements,
they are not to describe the solution. So all this discussion of what syntax
easier or harder to read is a bit premature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:49 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt
> The two requirements are written exactly the same way, and
> yet Juergen you
> interpret them very differently. Any textual representation
> meetsw the
> requirement as you re-state 4.1.3. If that were accurate, then any
> parseable representation would meet the requirements for
> 4.1.4. What Jon
> is raising on 4.1.3 is that if (as the requirement says) we
> are going for
> "easy" readability, then we have to decide ~easy for whom~.
> find reading languages they are familiar with easy. Heck, I
> knew folks who
> thought RPG was "readable". So either this is a vacuous
> requirement, or
> we need to be more specific about whom it is to be read by. By many
> standards, current MIBs are quite readable.
> Joel M. Halpern
> At 03:10 PM 8/16/01 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >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.