[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Methods in the NIM requirements

comments below.

John Strassner wrote:
> comments inline
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Harrington" <dbh@cabletron.com>
> To: "John Strassner" <jstrassn@cisco.com>
> Cc: "Weiss, Walter" <WWeiss@lucentctc.com>;
> <nim@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Methods in the NIM requirements
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe what Walter has been trying to address is
> backwards
> > compatibility with existing practices. We have ten years
> worth of MIBs
> > to consider, plus additional data models for other
> protocols.
> No one is ignoring the MIBs and other protocols. If you
> would actually look at one of the models, you would realize
> that it already maps some MIB information. This was true of
> CIM and DEN 2 years ago, and is true of the Policy models
> that have been recently published as IETF drafts.
I was commenting within the context of this "theoretical" NIM-Methods
discussion, and I did not study the Policy Information Model or CIM
first to see how well backwards compatibility was handled. I did not
intend to imply that work which had been done ignored previous work,
only that we need to ensure that we accommodate multiple paradigms, but
in reviewing this message after your response, I see that I did imply,
or rather outright state, that the work done by you and Andrea and
others ignored backwards compatibility. 

Given the work you and others have done to ensure backwards
compatibility with the existing standards, I was way out of line with
those comments. I apologize profusely to all involved.

David Harrington         Spectrum for Smart Networking
dbh@cabletron.com        Cabletron Systems Inc.
org:Cabletron Systems Inc
adr:;;35 Industrial Way;Rochester;NH;03867;USA
fn:Harrington, David