Re: sming meeting minutes draft... Questions for the wg.

[Wes Hardaker <hardaker@tislabs.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:44:59 -0800, "Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com> said:

David> [DaveD] This is the key question, isn't it? Should the smi mib
David> evolve and continue to be the nm data model for the IETF in the
David> future, or should we be migrating to something else?

Where are we today?  We've talked for a long about the issues
surrounding the SMIv2 and SPPI languages, the things that were needed
in a new language, and the structure it should look like.  We're now
at a point multiple-years (I've lost track) later where we have
actually made the most crucial decisions.  We've selected the path
forward, and it just needs to be done.  It may be that XML might be a
better alternative in the future.  However, lets finish this task
first.  SMIv3 is close, I think, to fruition.  Let's finish it so it
can be used.  Maybe in the future all MIBs will be converted, but in
the mean time we'll achieve the largest win by finishing what was
started rather than rethinking the last multiple-years (again).

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories