[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scope of NIM
- To: nim@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: Scope of NIM
- From: "Avri Doria" <avri@nortelnetworks.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 06:43:22 -0700
- Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 06:51:42 -0700
- Envelope-to: nim-data@psg.com
- Organization: Nortel Networks - Routing Architecture Lab
"Weiss, Walter" wrote:
>
> > > > Therefore, I suggest that in the aftermath of the NIM
> > BOF, the topic
> > > > which this mailing-list has to consider is what to do about an
> > > > Information Model.
> > >
> > > If the objective is to create an information model based on
> > the superset of
> > > SMI (SPPI) or SMIng, I would agree with you.
> >
> > Your "if statement" makes no sense to me, since the oft-repeated
> > definition of "information model" says that it is independent of the
>
> > data models like SMI/SPPI/SMIng.
> >
> SMI/SPPI/SMIng is not a data model or an information model. It is a
> language for specifying structures. To the extent that it supports
> multiple distinct protocols, it is also an information modeling
> language.
I am glad you brought this up.
I have for a while been confused about the arguments that the
SMI/SPPI/SMIng constituted a data model. While it is true that
these can be used to derive a data model, I too believe that they
express the structure of the information model and do not determine
the data model in the same way that a LDAP expression would. Both
in agents and in management systems I have worked on, I have never
had the structure of the MIB or PIB determine the way in which the
data was handled internally.
a.