[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scope of NIM
Title: RE: Scope of NIM
Walter, I strongly object to your "positions" in
this paragraph ...
<WW> ... Specifically, if we say that this work is applicable
to only data structures we don't really leverage all the OO concepts, but the
results will be readily applicable to current IETF protocols such as SNMP, COPS,
and LDAP. In contrast, if we broaden the scope to include the remaining OO
concepts, we expand the applicability beyond the IETF and data oriented
protocols. The price for this expanded scope is greater challanges in proving
the value to IETF protocols (more complex mappings and algorithmic mappings),
and a lower probability of success as gauged by interest amoung the IETF
participants at the BOF. We have to ask the question: do we want to shoot for
the ideal risking that it will never be used (n+1), or do we want to shoot for
more consistency with what we have risking obsolesence when(if) non-data driven
management interfaces become the rage in the IETF.
</WW>
OO
approaches and the techniques of information modeling have NOTHING to do with
"applicability beyond the IETF and data oriented protocols". The scope of
coverage of an information model is unrelated to the abstraction and modeling
techniques and concepts that are used. You could easily restrict the
focus of a modeling effort to the IETF's data oriented
protocols and management efforts. In fact, you would probably want to
restrict things further and prioritize all the possible protocols and
management efforts.
Of
course, the right answer to your question is do what is applicable to the
IETF and don't "boil the ocean." However, you ask the wrong question by
saying data structures or OO concepts. I am currently working on several
OO models that are "readily applicable" to current IETF protocols and
efforts.
Andrea