Re: Objectives discussion

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 07:04 PM 11/21/2001 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to suggest you or anyone else
don't understand the operational aspects of networking.
It would be great if we all agree that the people using 
this technology the most are the ones who should get the 
most benefit, and the highest priority, wrt/ all design decisions.

Andy




>>>>>> 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/>