RE: draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Great. Thes proposed changes sound good to me in the
sense that they indeed address the concern that we 
MUST properly evaluate cost/benefit ratio in our next
steps.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durham, David [mailto:david.durham@intel.com]
> Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2001 3:22
> To: 'sming@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: FW: draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Given feedback on the objectives ID from our AD and recorded 
> in the meeting
> minutes, I would also like to see the following 
> clarifications incorporated
> into the document before forwarding it to the IESG. These 
> updates emphasize
> that we are doing objectives now (not requirements) because a cost vs.
> benefits discussion must now be part of the proposal evaluation. These
> clarifications don't warrant another last call, but I do want 
> the WG to be
> aware of them in case there are objections.
> Cheers,
> -Dave
> 
> Change section 4.1 from:
> 
> This section represents the list of objectives that have been 
> accepted by
> the SMIng working group to be worthwhile.  They must be 
> addressed by SMIng
> and may only be placed back if they turn out to contradict with other
> accepted objectives that weigh heavier.
> 
> to:
> 
> This section represents the list of objectives that have been 
> accepted by
> the SMIng working group as worthwhile and therefore deserving 
> of further
> consideration.  Each of these objectives must be evaluated by 
> the working
> group to determine if the benefit incurs an acceptable level 
> of cost.  An
> accepted objective may subsequently be rejected if the 
> cost/benefit analysis
> determines that the benefit does not justify the cost or that 
> the objective
> is in direct conflict with one or more other accepted 
> objectives that are
> deemed more important.
> 
> Change the abstract from:
> 
> This document describes the objectives of a new data 
> definition language,
> suitable for the modeling of network management constructs, 
> that can be
> directly mapped into SNMP and COPS-PR protocol operations.
> 
> The purpose of this document is to ensure that a subsequent language
> specification is complete and consistent with the stated 
> objectives.  It
> captures the results of the working group discussions towards 
> consensus on
> the SMIng objectives.
> 
> to:
> 
> This document describes the objectives for a new data 
> definition language,
> suitable for the modeling of network management constructs, 
> that can be
> directly mapped into SNMP and COPS-PR protocol operations.
> 
> The purpose of this document is to serve as a set of objectives that a
> subsequent language specification should try to address.  It 
> captures the
> results of the working group discussions towards consensus on 
> the SMIng
> objectives.
> 
> In section 2, change:
> 
> The SMIng working group has been chartered to define a new 
> data definition
> language to align SMIv2 and SPPI since these languages are 
> very similar.
> 
> to:
> 
> The SMIng working group has been chartered to define a new 
> data definition
> language that will eliminate the need for a separate SMIv2 and SPPI
> language. That is, the new languange should address the needs for the
> current SMIv2 and SPPI languages so that over time we can all 
> use the new
> language instead.
> 
> 
>