[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
objects
- To: nim@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: objects
- From: "Tom Scott" <vedatel@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:00:59 EDT
- Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:01:45 -0700
- Envelope-to: nim-data@psg.com
Friends of Internet Modelling:
As we pursue the scope of the model, we can also discuss the form of the
objects. Although the scope ccould theoretically be determined without
deciding what from the objects take, the two issues affect each other.
The underlying assumption or benchmark of the scope discussion seems to be
SNMP. But I think the limitations of an SNMP-based model will become more
evident if we examine the objects, their format and the process of defining
them. Maybe these limitations are acceptable, maybe not.
Would anyone be opposed to comparing and contrasting the proposed Internet
objects -- whatever they be -- with TMN/TINA objects, GDMO and UML?
A deeper, possibly philosophical, question involves the concept of object:
What do we think an object is? Is the proposed modeling initiative going to
be object oriented, and if so, what does that mean?
We are at a crossroads. Should the Internet and the protocols that it is
composed of remain in the procedure-oriented mode, or should it evolve --
one could justifiably argue devolve -- to an object-oriented paradigm that
is based on the passing of information and/or data between objects? Which
way to go?
-----------------------------------------------------
Tom Nelson Scott Vedatel Co
1411 Sheffield Dr. Bowling Green OH 43402
"In IP We Trust" "E Pluribus Unix" "Java/XML Rules"
-----------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com