[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Objectives discussion
>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:
Andy> For example, (a new one!) I think it would be a disaster to
Andy> build syntax extensibility into the language. Isn't it bad
Andy> enough we have all these vendor MIBs implemented instead of the
Andy> standard MIBs? I sure don't want vendors to be able to create
Andy> their own SMI, via extensions. From an academic POV - a cool
Andy> feature; From an operations POV - a potential nightmare.
I am not going to argue here on the technical point whether
extensibility is good or bad or to which extend it is good. I am
writing this note because your statement might again create the
perception that "academics" only think about cool features and do not
understand or consider "operational aspects". I do not think that
remarks formulated this way are terrible useful for the process.
[Perhaps I am just a little too sensitive today.]
Despite all this, I hear your concerns on this topic. But similar to
many of the other issues you raised, we (the WG) have to trade the
benefits against the costs of actually implementing it and the
potential risks we take with new features for the future. (Oops, this
really sounds like I am an engineer - sorry about that. ;-)
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Muehlenpfordtstr. 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax: +49 531 391 5936 <http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>