[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some questions on the base sming document
- To: sming@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Some questions on the base sming document
- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@longsys.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:51:47 -0500
- Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:53:19 -0800
- Envelope-to: sming-data@psg.com
1) In the text on the "unique" statement, it says several odd things:
1a) "If the `unique' statement is not present the class is not meant to
be instantiated directly, but just to be contained in other classes
or to be the parent class of other refining classes. This, it can be
regarded as something similar to an abstract class. "
But, if the object can be created if it is contained in another class,
that is not at all similar to "abstract". Only the second of the two cases
(the parent class of other regining classes) is "abstract". The common
case of an object contained by another object is perfectly reasonable. In
fact, Most object systems would allow for shared objects which can only be
found from some object which references them, rather than having global
uniqueness properties. (The distinction being that an object which is
referenced from more than one place is not "contained" in the way some
object terminology sets use the word.)
1b) "If present, the attribute list must not contain any attribute more
than once and the attributes should be ordered so that the
attributes that are most significant in most situation appear first.
Minor point, the "must not" should be capitalized, as the "RECOMMENDED" is
throughout the document. More significantly, what does the second sentence
mean? Are we requiring that the attributes be ordered? If not, why
include the "should" since the system will not be able to take any
advantage of the ordering to help searches unless it knows that the
ordering is always met.
2) I know that the EoS folks are discussing having ways of returning more
information on traps / notifications. Should we consider having a way to
represent what information should be included with an "event"?
2') Should we be representing the distinction between reliable and
unreliable events, or is that a level of distinction that should only be
represented in the protocol mapping?
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern