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

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Hardaker [mailto:wes@hardakers.net]
> 
> Jon> 2. Where on the range of change are we targeting, for example:
> 
> Jon> A. Minor - minimum fixes to cause convergence.
> Jon> B. Substantial - in addition to convergence changes,
> Jon>                  additions for features like aggregate objects, a
> Jon>                  bit of OO.
> Jon> C. Significant - A new fully featured language including
> Jon>                  full OO support.
> 
> D. An entirely different beast - usage of new features of the language
>    may mean that the way the protocol(s) is interpreted might be
>    changed.  (As an example, do you want to drop the Entry node
>    requirement for tables created in the future in the new language
>    (this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a way to specify it for
>    translation/backwards-compatibility purposes)?)
> 

[Dave] Well, D seems to violate the charter since we are not re-doing any
protocols here (if that's what you mean). A is not an option because the
SPPI has already integrated several OO concepts (PRCs=classes, inheritance,
typed references, etc.). So the act of convergence moves us to B or C. Also,
it seems to me that since the SMI isn't exactly improved every year, we
should make the most of this opportunity ... mitigated by what is feasible
today of course.