RE: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends Sept ember 18, 2002
"Durham, David" <[email protected]> Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:45:33 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sming |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25504.090B97A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Yes, David, you are correct. Let me add one more consensus item: There is consensus that: 6. The output of the sming wg will be called SMIv3. [see the June interim meeting minutes for more details] -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:26 AM To: 'Durham, David'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends Sept embe r 18, 2002 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:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:25 PM > To: '[email protected]' > 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 > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25504.090B97A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <TITLE>RE: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends Septembe r 18, 2002</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4916.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Yes, David, you are correct. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let me add one more consensus item:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>There is consensus that:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>6. The output of the sming wg will be called SMIv3. [see the June interim meeting minutes for more details]</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=621304017-05092002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>-Dave</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harrington, David [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:26 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Durham, David'; '[email protected]'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends Sept embe r 18, 2002<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=2>Hi David,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>dbh</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> From: Durham, David [<A href="mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:25 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> To: '[email protected]'</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Cc: Durham, David</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Subject: SMIng consensus issues restated, call for consensus ends</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Septembe r 18, 2002</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> I have prepared this message to the mailing list to initiate </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> a last call on</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> the wg consensus for items raised during the IETF and interim </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> meetings. This</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> last call is also for the edification of those on the list </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> who have not</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> read/commented on the meeting minutes.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> There are several items that achieved clear consensus in the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> wg meetings.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> This mail is to confirm that the mailing list is not of a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> different opinion.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> There is consensus that it is a requirement:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 1. That the sming supports N-levels of nesting. This includes </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> the nesting of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> complex data structures, unions, and multidimensional </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> constructs such as</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> arrays. [See the 53rd IETF SMIng meeting minutes for more details] </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 2. That the sming take advantage of the hierarchical oid namespace to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> achieve consensus item number 1. That is, the naming scheme should map</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> directly to the n-levels of nesting as is in Andy Bierman's </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> smi-ds proposal.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> [See the 53rd IETF SMIng meeting minutes for more details] </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 3. The smiv2 definitions be convertible to sming (meaning </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> that sming is</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> backwards compatible with smiv2). It is not a requirement </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> that new sming</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> definitions map back to the smiv2. [See the June 2002 SMIng </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Interim meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> minutes for more details] </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 4. The existing smi look-and-feel will be preserved where </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> possible. There</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> are exceptions for new constructs in the sming language. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Also, where the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> existing smi syntax is broken it should be fixed. [See the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 53rd IETF SMIng</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> meeting minutes and June Interim meeting minutes for more details] </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> 5. Backward compatibility of the new sming with the SPPI is not a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> requirement. [See the 54th IETF SMIng meeting minutes for </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> more details] </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Note that the last call period for these items ends in two weeks, on</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> September 18th.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Cheers,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> -Dave</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25504.090B97A0--