RE: Methods in the NIM requirements

["Weiss, Walter" <WWeiss@lucentctc.com>]

John,

Sorry for the dalay. The point is that the requirements document
specifically seeks an information model which is equally applicable to a
protocol, repository, and API. Therefore, I may want to use a NIM defined
data structure to represent an interface via SNMP or I may want to use the
same data structure to represent the state of a device in a repository, or I
may want to use the repository distribute data structure to devices as
configuration. In the last case, the paradigm suggests a write to the
directory from a management entity and a read from the device to retrieve
the configuration. As neither of the operations in this paradigm could be
considered as real-time, the "go" semantic is at best ambiguous.

regards,

-Walter

> ??? An information model is independent of any specific type
> of repository. What does the directory have to do with
> anything?
> 
> regards,
> John

> > I think Keith's point is accurate (and I phrased my point
> poorly), SNMP
> > assumes a memory map model. Therefore, the protocol *and*
> the data
> > structures assume an interactive relationship with the
> device (a "go" in
> > Andrea's terms). But I think we are refining the
> parameters of the question
> > without discussing the question directly. If the NIM model
> implies a "go"
> > semantic, how is the model applicable to the directory. If
> I have a method
> > for reboot that means do it now, how do I represent the
> current state
> > (rebooting/(re)initializing/unavailable) of the machine
> in a directory.
> > "Go" implies real-time semantics, yet we all know that
> directories are not
> > well suited for real-time status representations.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > -Walter
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: remoore@us.ibm.com [mailto:remoore@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:40 AM
> > > To: Weiss, Walter
> > > Cc: nim@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: Methods in the NIM requirements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Walter,
> > >
> > > You've said this twice now:
> > >
> > > >Should the semantics of "go" be in the model? If we
> look at many
> > > >of the models out there today, all have "go" semantics.
> However,
> > > >most are in the protocol itself. The SET command is
> part of SNMP,
> > > >not the MIB.
> > >
> > > >In contrast, when the model is applied to a management
> protocol
> > > >(SNMP), actions are implied by the protocol (GETs and
> SETs).
> > >
> > > But it isn't true.  The semantics of SNMP's SET command
> itself
> > > are simply changing the value of a MIB object
> (attribute).  If an
> > > SNMP SET is going to have side effects, these *must* be
> specified
> > > in the MIB definition of the object being SET.
> > >
> > > The *protocol* operation that embodies the concept of an
> action is
> > > (not surprisingly) CMIS/CMIP's M-ACTION operation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > Bob Moore
> > > IBM Networking Software
> > > +1-919-254-4436
> > > remoore@us.ibm.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>