Re: draft minutes from the sming interim:

["David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>]

HI,

Randy - I agree with you on all of the below except "impeded progress".
I believe that the lack of good MIB tools has resulted in
perceived "hard to use SNMP" notion. Of course, only time will
tell after someone provides such widely available tools.
I've created such tools but have not made them available
due to ownership and intellectual property issues.

At 12:46 PM 6/28/2002 -0700, rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com wrote:
>...
>> David> [...] a well defined and standard annotation mechanism as
>> David> part of the language is really very useful. There are several
>> David> examples of the annotation that exist in commercial products
>> David> such as the MIB compiler from Epilogue (WindRiver) to assist
>> David> in generation of code for SNMP agents, and from Novell and HP
>> David> to provide additional information about notifications.
>> 
>> I agree.
>..
>
>Having also developed such tools, I've come around to the view
>that code generation directives, "hints" and the like really
>belong in a separate file.  The MIB definitions are supposed
>to be implementation independent.  By their very nature,
>these annotations are aimed at a particular implementation
>or application type.  Simply from a configuration management
>sanity perspective, I think they should be kept in separate
>files.
>
>That said, having a common high-level grammar for these things
>would be nice, though it's clear that the lack of a grammar
>for extensions has not significantly impeded progress.

Regards,
/david t. perkins