Re: terminology challenge

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 11:45 AM 12/31/2001, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

>>>>>> rpresuhn-lists  writes:
>
>Randy> One of the things that bothers me about all the proposals (and
>Randy> perhaps this is just because I spent too much time in
>Randy> CMIP-land) is that we haven't been making a clear distinction
>Randy> between an object having attributes and an instance of an
>Randy> object being (logically) contained in another object instance.
>Randy> Instead, the SMI compells us to think in terms of INDEX
>Randy> clauses, which, if inherited, make my head ache when I think
>Randy> about scoping.
>
>The NMRG SMIng proposal does make a clear separation between the
>definition of (reusable) data types and classes and their
>instantiation in SNMP tables. Indexes are assigned in the protocol
>mappings where the instantiation takes place. See
><draft-ietf-sming-snmp-02.txt> for the details.

I think the WG agreed in SLC that we want to attempt
to create a hierarchical data model and instance naming 
scheme. I agree that an explicit mapping to SMIv2 may
be  needed, but as a mechanism to fine-tune a generic
SMIv3 -> SMIv2 mapping algorithm, not as part of
the primary naming scheme.

Explicit protocol mapping macros in the SMI (instead of implicit
protocol mapping algorithms) should be a last resort.  At a minimum, 
any explicit mapping data (and index definitions) should be contained
with the data being mapped.


>/js

Andy



>-- 
>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/>