[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Objectives discussion



At 01:36 PM 11/20/2001 -0800, rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011114090212.02ca6e70@fedex.cisco.com>
>> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:47:45 -0800
>> To: sming@ops.ietf.org
>> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
>> Subject: Objectives discussion
>..
>> 4) don't merge SMI and SPPI ... merge SMI and SPPI
>..
>
>The WG charter's first paragraph says that a merged language
>is the objective.  Is dropping this objective now an option?


I meant (4) above to represent a range of opinions, that's all.
Merge means different things to different people. To me, it
means create a single, coherent, data definition language
that can be useful in COPS-PR and SNMP environments.
It does not mean identify 'everything' in SMI and SPPI, 
and put both sets of mechanisms in SMIng.

I also do not believe we should weight SMI and SPPI equally.
The installed base for SPPI is line noise compared to SMI.
If we have to choose between common sense engineering and
academic purity, the choice should be obvious.  

Andy


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