Hi David,
I believe it was also the consensus during the meetings that the output will be SMIv3. This would differentiate it from the SMIng proposal of the NMRG. Your consensus call keeps refering to "the sming"; why not call it SMIv3?
dbh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durham, David [mailto:david.durham@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:25 PM
> To: 'sming@ops.ietf.org'
> Cc: Durham, David
> Subject: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends
> Septembe r 18, 2002
>
>
> I have prepared this message to the mailing list to initiate
> a last call on
> the wg consensus for items raised during the IETF and interim
> meetings. This
> last call is also for the edification of those on the list
> who have not
> read/commented on the meeting minutes.
>
> There are several items that achieved clear consensus in the
> wg meetings.
> This mail is to confirm that the mailing list is not of a
> different opinion.
>
> There is consensus that it is a requirement:
>
> 1. That the sming supports N-levels of nesting. This includes
> the nesting of
> complex data structures, unions, and multidimensional
> constructs such as
> arrays. [See the 53rd IETF SMIng meeting minutes for more details]
>
> 2. That the sming take advantage of the hierarchical oid namespace to
> achieve consensus item number 1. That is, the naming scheme should map
> directly to the n-levels of nesting as is in Andy Bierman's
> smi-ds proposal.
> [See the 53rd IETF SMIng meeting minutes for more details]
>
> 3. The smiv2 definitions be convertible to sming (meaning
> that sming is
> backwards compatible with smiv2). It is not a requirement
> that new sming
> definitions map back to the smiv2. [See the June 2002 SMIng
> Interim meeting
> minutes for more details]
>
> 4. The existing smi look-and-feel will be preserved where
> possible. There
> are exceptions for new constructs in the sming language.
> Also, where the
> existing smi syntax is broken it should be fixed. [See the
> 53rd IETF SMIng
> meeting minutes and June Interim meeting minutes for more details]
>
> 5. Backward compatibility of the new sming with the SPPI is not a
> requirement. [See the 54th IETF SMIng meeting minutes for
> more details]
>
> Note that the last call period for these items ends in two weeks, on
> September 18th.
>
> Cheers,
> -Dave
>