Re: draft minutes from the sming interim:

[rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com]

Hi -

> From: Frank Strauss <strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> To: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
> Cc: sming@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft minutes from the sming interim:
> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020627145424.02cedbe0@127.0.0.1>
> 	<5.1.0.14.2.20020627145424.02cedbe0@127.0.0.1>
> 	<5.1.0.14.2.20020628101239.036042e0@127.0.0.1>
> Date: 28 Jun 2002 21:04:38 +0200
> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020628101239.036042e0@127.0.0.1>
> Message-ID: <ypwu1nnp6m1.fsf@hansa.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
..
> David> [...] a well defined and standard annotation mechanism as
> David> part of the language is really very useful. There are several
> David> examples of the annotation that exist in commercial products
> David> such as the MIB compiler from Epilogue (WindRiver) to assist
> David> in generation of code for SNMP agents, and from Novell and HP
> David> to provide additional information about notifications.
> 
> I agree.
..

Having also developed such tools, I've come around to the view
that code generation directives, "hints" and the like really
belong in a separate file.  The MIB definitions are supposed
to be implementation independent.  By their very nature,
these annotations are aimed at a particular implementation
or application type.  Simply from a configuration management
sanity perspective, I think they should be kept in separate
files.

That said, having a common high-level grammar for these things
would be nice, though it's clear that the lack of a grammar
for extensions has not significantly impeded progress.

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