Re: sming wg agenda proposal

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:

>> SMIng did allow hyphens. SMIng did have class structures where
>> each class had its own naming scope - no need for globally unique
>> names.  Globally unique names were only required in the SNMP
>> protocol mappings, to facilitate conversion to SMIv2. Mappings to
>> other formalisms could have used the shorter names.

Andy> This does not work for SMIv2 MIBs converted to SMIv3, because
Andy> you can't change the descriptors for these MIBs.  I am in favor
Andy> of changing the descriptor rules for SMIv3 as you suggest.  The
Andy> optional XML-NAME clause should only be used if needed.

I am talking about SMIng. And this would have worked with SMIng since
the only thing needed would be to keep the names identical in the SNMP
protocol mapping. And in addition, SMIng would have allowed to do
something specific to every mapping in a clean way because the concept
of separation between data definitions and mappings was a core idea in
SMIng.

I agree that SMIv3 is (unfortunately from my perspective) a different
story which lacks a clean separation between reusable data structure
definitions and mappings. So the approach to throw in a few keywords
here and there for the most favourite mapping of the day is likely to
happen.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>