Re: Aggregate Attributes

[rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com]

Hi -

> From: Frank Strauss <strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
> Cc: "Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>, sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Aggregate Attributes
> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010904004822.05090040@mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com>
> Date: 20 Sep 2001 11:02:44 +0200
> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010904004822.05090040@mira-sjcm-2.cisco.com>
> Message-ID: <ypwsndiute3.fsf@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
..
> The descriptions of attribute groups and containment now say:
> 
> 4.1.27:
>    Description: An attribute group is a non-divisible, extensible
>       grouping of attributes that are meaningful together.  It can be
>       reused as the type of attributes in other attribute groups (see
>       also Section 4.1.28).  This is similar to `structs' in C or
>       `classes' in Java.
> 
> 4.1.28:
>    Description: SMIng must provide support for the creation of new
>       attribute groups from attributes of more basic types and
>       potentially other attribute groups.
..

These appear to be in conflict.  I can't reconcile the "non-divisble"
in 4.1.27 with the process of composition described in 4.1.28.

(Also, it still bugs me that this definition of "attribute group"
bears little resemblance to the concept as defined in X.720, which
defines "attribute group" as "a group of attributes which have
been given a single identifier for ease of access.")

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------