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


Friends of Internet Modelling:

As we pursue the scope of the model, we can also discuss the form of the 
objects. Although the scope ccould theoretically be determined without 
deciding what from the objects take, the two issues affect each other.

The underlying assumption or benchmark of the scope discussion seems to be 
SNMP. But I think the limitations of an SNMP-based model will become more 
evident if we examine the objects, their format and the process of defining 
them. Maybe these limitations are acceptable, maybe not.

Would anyone be opposed to comparing and contrasting the proposed Internet 
objects -- whatever they be -- with TMN/TINA objects, GDMO and UML?

A deeper, possibly philosophical, question involves the concept of object: 
What do we think an object is? Is the proposed modeling initiative going to 
be object oriented, and if so, what does that mean?

We are at a crossroads. Should the Internet and the protocols that it is 
composed of remain in the procedure-oriented mode, or should it evolve -- 
one could justifiably argue devolve -- to an object-oriented paradigm that 
is based on the passing of information and/or data between objects? Which 
way to go?

Tom Nelson Scott               Vedatel Co
1411 Sheffield Dr.             Bowling Green OH 43402
"In IP We Trust"  "E Pluribus Unix"  "Java/XML Rules"

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com