[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
Dan, On your second question, I read the charter as "providing for" an
information model, not doing it. However, this needs to be much clearer.
Mixing the definition of a language with the definition of an information
model (that is expressed in the language) is mixing apples and oranges.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:39 AM
To: email@example.com; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Cc: email@example.com; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
Subject: RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
I apologize for the cross-posting, but this being a new work not directly
emerged from any of the existing activities, but obviously connected with
them, I have a hard time finding the appropriate list.
I have two questions:
* when the charter says 'The objective is to replace both the SMIv2
and the SPPI with a single merged language for defining information for the
monitoring, configuration, and provisioning of network devices' what does
replace mean? Is the intended work targeting the standards track, and SPPI
and SMIv2 will one day become historical? (I actually do not know what is
the resolution about the status of SPPI )
* The third paragraph talks about a 'transport independent information
model'. How does this relate to NIM? NIM started to discuss about such a
model, and seems to have got stuck in a dispute about the language. It looks
like smicng has taken a shortcut and decided that it has the answer to the
nim dilemma and found the appropriate language that nim could not agree
These questions are intended to clarify the relationship between the
different pieces of work in the area. I think such a work is really needed -
do we have the will and bandwidth to execute it?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Fri October 20 2000 15:16
> To: IETF-Announce; @firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
> Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
> The following Description was submitted, and is provided for
> informational purposes:
> Next Generation Structure of Management Informatio (sming)
> Current Status: Proposed Working Group
> Description of Working Group:
> This working group shall develop a standards-track specification for the
> next generation data definition language for specifying network
> management data. The language will be based on the SMIng developed in
> the IRTF Network Management Research Group. SMIng represents a superset
> of the SMIv2 (Structure of Management Information v2) and the SPPI
> (Structure of Policy Provisioning Information). The objective is to
> replace both the SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single, merged language for
> defining information for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning
> of network devices.
> The language developed will enable the modeling of network management
> information in a manner that provides the benefits of object-oriented
> design. To achieve this, the language must allow the design of highly
> reusable syntactic/semantic components (templates) that can be reused by
> multiple IETF working groups for convenience, consistency, and to
> maximize interoperability in device management. A registration mechanism
> will also be described for reusable components defined using the
> language so that their existence and purpose may be archived.
> The language will provide for the definition of a transport-independent
> information model so as to allow a variety of implementation-specific
> technologies to be derived from a single definition. To demonstrate
> this, the working group will define two technology specific transport
> mappings: one for SNMP, and one for COPS.
> The language will also provide:
> - syntax optimized for parseability, human readability, & non-redundancy
> - conventions for representing inheritance and containment of defined
> - enhanced attribute-level and association-level constraints
> - a maximal amount of machine-parseable syntax so that programmatic
> tools can aid in modeling and implementation
> - a language extension capability
> This working group will also define typical usage scenarios for the
> language and highlight its features. Finally, it will develop a
> framework by which reusable components specified using this language can
> be registered and made readily available for continued reuse and
> The working group will not define data models, except as required for
> illustrative examples and the refactoring of existing data models.
> Specific data models are to be developed by the subject matter experts
> using the SMIng in the appropriate technology specific WGs.