RE: Objectives discussion

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

Hi Andy,

I'm not sure anyone can really construct a high-level opinion w/o a proposal
to base it on. It would seem that if the cost of change is low, and the
benefits are sufficiently high, then most people would be in favor of it...
But let's wait and see if anyone has formulated a high-level opinion at this
point (I for one found myself answering "it depends" to each of your
questions).

Also, I would restate number 4 to ask whether we want to continue diverging
by creating incompatible standards in the IETF, or do we want to attempt
convergence where possible. 

Cheers,
-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:48 AM
> To: sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Objectives discussion
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think we need to start analyzing the objectives,
> starting from a high level. The list of objectives
> is conflicting in places, and some objectives will
> cost way more than others to achieve. There are obviously
> many conflicting viewpoints represented in the objectives,
> and this is the source of the problem.   
> 
> I think there are high-level decisions to make that will help
> manage all these individual objectives, based on the primary
> goals of each WG member. It would be nice to know what
> the WG consensus is on the following -- maybe at the extremes,
> but likely somewhere in the middle for all of them:
> 
> 1) don't want to change anything  ... want to start over
>   
> 2) keep the SMI data model ... replace the SMI data model
> 
> 3) keep the SMI look-and-feel ... replace the SMI look-and-feel
> 
> 4) don't merge SMI and SPPI ... merge SMI and SPPI
> 
> 5) don't care about independent protocol mappings ... must support 
>    independent protocol mappings at any cost
> 
> 6) optimize for human usability ... optimize for machine usability
> 
> I made it clear where I stand by writing the SMI-DS draft.
> Hopefully, the rest of the WG will start speaking up as well.
> 
> thanks,
> Andy
> 
> 
>