Re: Latest posted agenda for SMIng meeting at the 49th IETF...

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

> Hi -
> 
> (re-post; apparently this mailing list will only accept my
> postings if use a forged "from" address...)
> 
> > Message-ID: <10C8636AE359D4119118009027AE998704F39C2F@FMSMSX34>
> > From: "Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>
> > To: SMIng WG <sming@ops.ietf.org>
> > Subject: Latest posted agenda for SMIng meeting at the 49th IETF...
> > Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:01:10 -0800 
> ..
> > of Policy Provisioning Information). The objective is to replace both the
> > SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single, merged language as the data definition
> > language for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning of network
> > devices. 
> ..
> 
> No matter how hard I squint or cross my eyes, I can't get the
> current SMING to look like a "merged language".  If we're
> really intent on going with the new syntax, perhaps we
> should strike the word "merged" from this charter.
> 

Randy, I can see how you would conclude this. Your point many only be
the specific wording of the charter. The comments below reflect what I
think some of the questions regarding the WG are. To some degree they
were expressed by others as well during the meeting.

SPPI and the current SNMP SMI share to a large degree, a common
syntax. The [correct] desire to have a common data definition language
is a positive thing that does not require the significant departure from
the syntax currently used by PIBs and MIBs in my view.  Assuming that a
convergence is 'a good thing', I think the WG should answer the
following clearly before moving too far.

      1. What specific additional functions and goals are desired over
      what we have in the SPPI and SMI?

      2. Where on the range of change are we targeting, for example:

              A. Minor - minimum fixes to cause convergence.
              B. Substantial - in addition to convergence changes,
                 additions for features like aggregate objects, a bit of
                 OO. 
              C. Significant - A new fully featured language including
                 full OO support.


      3. What is the sufficient and necessary change required to meet
         the goals, and is SMING a correct response? If not what needs to
         be changed?

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/