[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Scope of NIM
Title: RE: Scope of NIM
Andrea,
Let me
clarify. If we embrace all the OO concepts inheritance, full associations
(including encapsulation), and methods, we already know that there is a great
deal of skeptcism about how easily some of these capabilities can be mapped to
data centric protocols such as SNMP. However, these concepts do fit in rather
nicely with other technologies such as CORBA, which is actively being used to
manage certain types of networked environments. Hence, while the applicable
technologies for the full suite of OO concepts is greater, the risk of it being
embraced and used by the IETF is also greater because the mapping challenges are
greater, particularly for those technologies in which the IETF has a vested
interest (SNMP, COPS, LDAP, and AAA). Do I believe that it is infeasible to
engage in this work? No. However, we better line up a few users for it or it
will be a n+1 activity.
In
contrast, supporting some of the OO concepts such as inhertiance and
encapsulation as an increment to SMI moves the IETF in the direction of OO. As I
understand it, this is actively being worked on. If this is the case, then the
question for an activity that starts from here is, can we use these tools to
reduce the number of data models being developed across the
protocols.
regards,
-Walter
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