Subject: [nmrg] RE: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)]
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:23:35 +0200
List-Id: Network Management Research Group <nmrg.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>

Thanks, will do. So it will be on IESG agenda on 17 Oct.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: woensdag 2 oktober 2002 15:01
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Network Management Research Group
> Subject: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)]
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:
> 
> Bert> So the question: should I expect another rev, or do you think
> Bert> you/we appropriately answered all questions and do not need
> Bert> another rev. I need to know by the end of the week. If so, then
> Bert> I can put it on IESG agenda for 17 October
> 
> I have gone through all messages generated on this subject and my
> conclusion is that we do not have to spin another revision. The only
> change I have is an editorial one (usage of hyphens) which we can
> probably handle during the RFC author review period. Given this, I
> would be happy if you can put this document on the IESG agenda.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
> <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:01:11 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)]
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> So the question: should I expect another rev, or do you think
Bert> you/we appropriately answered all questions and do not need
Bert> another rev. I need to know by the end of the week. If so, then
Bert> I can put it on IESG agenda for 17 October

I have gone through all messages generated on this subject and my
conclusion is that we do not have to spin another revision. The only
change I have is an editorial one (usage of hyphens) which we can
probably handle during the RFC author review period. Given this, I
would be happy if you can put this document on the IESG agenda.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt  (Informational RFC)]
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 04:35:41 -0600 
Sender: [email-masked]

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_01C269FF.74758130
Content-Type: text/plain

Hi Juergen,

Here's my comments; I'm pulling up Bob's points for easier reference.

Bob writes:
1. Section 3, first paragraph: "An IM can be implemented in different ways
and mapped upon different protocols; IMs are therefore protocol neutral." In
my experience it isn't quite so clear-cut.  The reality is that when a group
of people experienced in a given DM set out to define an IM, the IM takes on
the flavor of the DM.  (I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here - - more
like what happens when you don't clean out your coffee-maker well enough
before using it to brew tea.)  So, for example, there are "whiffs" of LDAP
in some parts of the DMTF CIM model.

<js>
I disagree. If an IM is influenced by people experienced in writing DMs,
then shame on them for not keeping the IM protocol neutral. Past mistakes
may have been done by groups in the past, but I would hope that we would do
better in the future. The IMs being defined in the TMF are indeed protocol
neutral and independent of DM influences.

Furthermore, there are strong database influences in CIM (the concept of
"keys", the concept of weak relationships, etc.). I note that neither of
these are pertinent to LDAP, and am not sure what Bob is referring to. </js>

Bob writes:
But I'm not just making a point about what people do; there are objective
differences here as well.  A figure like the one at the top of page 4
suggests that the mappings to the three IMs are equally easy,  This is
certainly not the case.  If, for example, you IM has the datatype "real" in
it, it's much easier to map it to GDMO than it is to map it to SMI.

<js>
I disagree. An IM should be free to use a standard set of datatypes, such as
those defined in the UML. Mapping to a DM may be hard (e.g., good luck
mapping to a real in LDAP!) but that should not be the problem of the IM -
that should instead be the problem of the mapping between the IM and a DM.
</js>

Bob writes:
If the scope of this document is *just* about defining the two terms IM and
DM, then maybe what's there is OK.  But to the extent that it slides over
into being a BCP, then I think it would be better if it acknowledged these
realities.

<js>
I thought that this draft was going to be issued as informational. If it is
going to be issued as a BCP, then it needs more work to show how best
practices are used to constuct IMs and DMs as well as mappings between them.

I don't think that the above two issues need mentioning, but wouldn't object
if additional clarifications were added. </js>

Bob writes:
2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM for LDAP isn't mentioned in
any of the examples, since, between the IETF and DMTF,  that's the case
where (to my knowledge) we have the most extensive set of IM-->DM mappings.

<js>
One could certainly mention the LDAP DM. But the LDAP DM is NOT defined in
2252! All 2252 does is define attribute syntaxes for use with the protocol.
I think that we should leave well enough alone...</js>

regards,
John
 
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO  80903  USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
  FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:09 AM
To: Network Management Research Group
Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt
(Informational RFC)]

Any comments on this?

/js

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Subject: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
From: Robert Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:21:34 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20

 

Bert,

I think this is a useful document, that definitely warrants publication.  I
have only a couple of relatively minor comments:

1. Section 3, first paragraph: "An IM can be implemented in different ways
and mapped upon different protocols; IMs are therefore protocol neutral." In
my experience it isn't quite so clear-cut.  The reality is that when a group
of people experienced in a given DM set out to define an IM, the IM takes on
the flavor of the DM.  (I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here
- - more like what happens when you don't clean out your coffee-maker well
enough before using it to brew tea.)  So, for example, there are "whiffs" of
LDAP in some parts of the DMTF CIM model.

But I'm not just making a point about what people do; there are objective
differences here as well.  A figure like the one at the top of page 4
suggests that the mappings to the three IMs are equally easy,  This is
certainly not the case.  If, for example, you IM has the datatype "real" in
it, it's much easier to map it to GDMO than it is to map it to SMI.

If the scope of this document is *just* about defining the two terms IM and
DM, then maybe what's there is OK.  But to the extent that it slides over
into being a BCP, then I think it would be better if it acknowledged these
realities.

2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM for LDAP isn't mentioned in
any of the examples, since, between the IETF and DMTF,  that's the case
where (to my knowledge) we have the most extensive set of IM-->DM mappings.

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
Advanced Design and Technology
Application Integration Middleware Division
IBM Software Group
+1-919-254-4436
[email-masked]
------- End of forwarded message -------
-- 
!! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list. !! Please do
not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or adjust !! your
settings, send a mail message to <[email-masked]> !! or look
at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C269FF.74758130
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt =
(Informational RFC)]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Juergen,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Here's my comments; I'm pulling up Bob's points for =
easier reference.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. Section 3, first paragraph: &quot;An IM can be =
implemented in different ways and mapped upon different protocols; IMs =
are therefore protocol neutral.&quot; In my experience it isn't quite =
so clear-cut.&nbsp; The reality is that when a group of people =
experienced in a given DM set out to define an IM, the IM takes on the =
flavor of the DM.&nbsp; (I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here - - =
more like what happens when you don't clean out your coffee-maker well =
enough before using it to brew tea.)&nbsp; So, for example, there are =
&quot;whiffs&quot; of LDAP in some parts of the DMTF CIM =
model.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;js&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I disagree. If an IM is influenced by people =
experienced in writing DMs, then shame on them for not keeping the IM =
protocol neutral. Past mistakes may have been done by groups in the =
past, but I would hope that we would do better in the future. The IMs =
being defined in the TMF are indeed protocol neutral and independent of =
DM influences.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Furthermore, there are strong database influences in =
CIM (the concept of &quot;keys&quot;, the concept of weak =
relationships, etc.). I note that neither of these are pertinent to =
LDAP, and am not sure what Bob is referring to. &lt;/js&gt;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>But I'm not just making a point about what people =
do; there are objective differences here as well.&nbsp; A figure like =
the one at the top of page 4 suggests that the mappings to the three =
IMs are equally easy,&nbsp; This is certainly not the case.&nbsp; If, =
for example, you IM has the datatype &quot;real&quot; in it, it's much =
easier to map it to GDMO than it is to map it to SMI.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;js&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I disagree. An IM should be free to use a standard =
set of datatypes, such as those defined in the UML. Mapping to a DM may =
be hard (e.g., good luck mapping to a real in LDAP!) but that should =
not be the problem of the IM - that should instead be the problem of =
the mapping between the IM and a DM. &lt;/js&gt;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>If the scope of this document is *just* about =
defining the two terms IM and DM, then maybe what's there is OK.&nbsp; =
But to the extent that it slides over into being a BCP, then I think it =
would be better if it acknowledged these realities.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;js&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I thought that this draft was going to be issued as =
informational. If it is going to be issued as a BCP, then it needs more =
work to show how best practices are used to constuct IMs and DMs as =
well as mappings between them.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I don't think that the above two issues need =
mentioning, but wouldn't object if additional clarifications were =
added. &lt;/js&gt;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM for =
LDAP isn't mentioned in any of the examples, since, between the IETF =
and DMTF,&nbsp; that's the case where (to my knowledge) we have the =
most extensive set of IM--&gt;DM mappings.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;js&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>One could certainly mention the LDAP DM. But the =
LDAP DM is NOT defined in 2252! All 2252 does is define attribute =
syntaxes for use with the protocol. I think that we should leave well =
enough alone...&lt;/js&gt;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>John</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>John Strassner</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chief Strategy Officer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Intelliden Corporation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>90 South Cascade Avenue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Colorado Springs, CO&nbsp; 80903&nbsp; USA</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>phone: +1.719.785.0648</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp; FAX: +1.719.785.0644</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email: [email-masked] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</=
A>] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:09 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Network Management Research Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)]</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Any comments on this?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>/js</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>------- Start of forwarded message -------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt =
(Informational RFC)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: &quot;Wijnen, Bert (Bert)&quot; =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Robert Moore &lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:21:34 -0400</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sender: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Precedence: bulk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3D0.0 required=3D5.0 =
tests=3D version=3D2.20</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bert,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I think this is a useful document, that definitely =
warrants publication.&nbsp; I have only a couple of relatively minor =
comments:</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. Section 3, first paragraph: &quot;An IM can be =
implemented in different ways and mapped upon different protocols; IMs =
are therefore protocol neutral.&quot; In my experience it isn't quite =
so clear-cut.&nbsp; The reality is that when a group of people =
experienced in a given DM set out to define an IM, the IM takes on the =
flavor of the DM.&nbsp; (I'm not suggesting anything nefarious =
here</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>- - more like what happens when you don't clean out =
your coffee-maker well enough before using it to brew tea.)&nbsp; So, =
for example, there are &quot;whiffs&quot; of LDAP in some parts of the =
DMTF CIM model.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>But I'm not just making a point about what people do; =
there are objective differences here as well.&nbsp; A figure like the =
one at the top of page 4 suggests that the mappings to the three IMs =
are equally easy,&nbsp; This is certainly not the case.&nbsp; If, for =
example, you IM has the datatype &quot;real&quot; in it, it's much =
easier to map it to GDMO than it is to map it to SMI.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If the scope of this document is *just* about =
defining the two terms IM and DM, then maybe what's there is OK.&nbsp; =
But to the extent that it slides over into being a BCP, then I think it =
would be better if it acknowledged these realities.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM for =
LDAP isn't mentioned in any of the examples, since, between the IETF =
and DMTF,&nbsp; that's the case where (to my knowledge) we have the =
most extensive set of IM--&gt;DM mappings.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Bob Moore</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Advanced Design and Technology</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Application Integration Middleware Division</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>IBM Software Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>+1-919-254-4436</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>[email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>------- End of forwarded message -------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>!! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' =
mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To =
unsubscribe or adjust !! your settings, send a mail message to =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; !! or look at <A =
HREF=3D"https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg</A>.=
</FONT></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C269FF.74758130--

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
To: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt  (Informational RFC)]
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 04:34:56 -0600 
Sender: [email-masked]

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_01C269FF.59D2A830
Content-Type: text/plain

I'm happy to provide references to LDAP, but why? It is no more nor less
important than any other DM mapping (though proper LDAP mapping is probably
less understood. ;-) ). Still, if you want this, please let me know and I'll
help - I'm the co-chair of LDUP and on the LDAP Directorate (similar to the
MIB Doctors).

regards,
John
 
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO  80903  USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
  FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Aiko Pras [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:23 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: Network Management Research Group
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt
(Informational RFC)]

Comments inline

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Any comments on this?
> 
> /js
> 
> ------- Start of forwarded message -------
> Subject: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)
> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> From: Robert Moore <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:21:34 -0400
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20
> 
>

>

>

> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> I think this is a useful document, that definitely warrants
> publication.  I have only a couple of relatively minor comments:
> 
> 1. Section 3, first paragraph: "An IM can be implemented in different
> ways and mapped upon different protocols; IMs are therefore protocol 
> neutral." In my experience it isn't quite so clear-cut.  The reality 
> is that when a group of people experienced in a given DM set out to 
> define an IM, the IM takes on the flavor of the DM.  (I'm not 
> suggesting anything nefarious here
> - - more like what happens when you don't clean out your coffee-maker well
> enough before using it to brew tea.)  So, for example, there are "whiffs"
> of LDAP in some parts of the DMTF CIM model.
> 
> But I'm not just making a point about what people do; there are
> objective differences here as well.  A figure like the one at the top 
> of page 4 suggests that the mappings to the three IMs are equally 
> easy,
That is not what the picture is supposed to say. The picture says 
something about the (theoretical) possibility to map an IM to multiple 
DMs. I agree that certain mappings are easier then others, but again, 
that was not what the picture was intended to show.

>  This is
> certainly not the case.  If, for example, you IM has the datatype
> "real" in it, it's much easier to map it to GDMO than it is to map it 
> to SMI.
> 
> If the scope of this document is *just* about defining the two terms
> IM and DM, then maybe what's there is OK.  But to the extent that it 
> slides over into being a BCP, then I think it would be better if it 
> acknowledged these realities.
I believe the intention is an informational RFC, not a BCP

> 
> 2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM for LDAP isn't mentioned 
> in any of the examples, since, between the IETF and DMTF,  that's the 
> case where (to my knowledge) we have the most extensive set of IM-->DM 
> mappings.
The "RFC" describes the results of a previous NMRG meeting. It would 
have been
nice if we would have invited more LDAP experts; in that case we would 
surely
have come up with better references to LDAP

-- 
!! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list. !! Please do
not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or adjust !! your
settings, send a mail message to <[email-masked]> !! or look
at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C269FF.59D2A830
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt =
(Informational RFC)]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm happy to provide references to LDAP, but why? It =
is no more nor less important than any other DM mapping (though proper =
LDAP mapping is probably less understood. ;-) ). Still, if you want =
this, please let me know and I'll help - I'm the co-chair of LDUP and =
on the LDAP Directorate (similar to the MIB Doctors).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>John</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>John Strassner</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Chief Strategy Officer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Intelliden Corporation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>90 South Cascade Avenue</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Colorado Springs, CO&nbsp; 80903&nbsp; USA</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>phone: +1.719.785.0648</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp; FAX: +1.719.785.0644</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>email: [email-masked] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Aiko Pras [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>] =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:23 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: Juergen Schoenwaelder</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cc: Network Management Research Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt (Informational RFC)]</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Comments inline</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Any comments on this?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; /js</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ------- Start of forwarded message =
-------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-02.txt =
(Informational RFC)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: &quot;Wijnen, Bert (Bert)&quot; =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cc: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Robert Moore =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:21:34 -0400</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sender: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Precedence: bulk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3D0.0 required=3D5.0 =
tests=3D version=3D2.20</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Bert,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I think this is a useful document, that =
definitely warrants</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; publication.&nbsp; I have only a couple of =
relatively minor comments:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1. Section 3, first paragraph: &quot;An IM can =
be implemented in different</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ways and mapped upon different protocols; IMs =
are therefore protocol </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; neutral.&quot; In my experience it isn't quite =
so clear-cut.&nbsp; The reality </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; is that when a group of people experienced in a =
given DM set out to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; define an IM, the IM takes on the flavor of the =
DM.&nbsp; (I'm not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; suggesting anything nefarious here</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; - - more like what happens when you don't clean =
out your coffee-maker well</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; enough before using it to brew tea.)&nbsp; So, =
for example, there are &quot;whiffs&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of LDAP in some parts of the DMTF CIM =
model.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; But I'm not just making a point about what =
people do; there are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; objective differences here as well.&nbsp; A =
figure like the one at the top </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of page 4 suggests that the mappings to the =
three IMs are equally </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; easy,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>That is not what the picture is supposed to say. The =
picture says </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>something about the (theoretical) possibility to map =
an IM to multiple </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>DMs. I agree that certain mappings are easier then =
others, but again, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that was not what the picture was intended to =
show.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp; This is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; certainly not the case.&nbsp; If, for example, =
you IM has the datatype</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &quot;real&quot; in it, it's much easier to map =
it to GDMO than it is to map it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; to SMI.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; If the scope of this document is *just* about =
defining the two terms</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; IM and DM, then maybe what's there is OK.&nbsp; =
But to the extent that it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; slides over into being a BCP, then I think it =
would be better if it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; acknowledged these realities.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I believe the intention is an informational RFC, not =
a BCP</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 2. It seems a little odd that the RFC 2252 DM =
for LDAP isn't mentioned </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; in any of the examples, since, between the IETF =
and DMTF,&nbsp; that's the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; case where (to my knowledge) we have the most =
extensive set of IM--&gt;DM </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; mappings.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The &quot;RFC&quot; describes the results of a =
previous NMRG meeting. It would </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have been</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>nice if we would have invited more LDAP experts; in =
that case we would </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>surely</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>have come up with better references to LDAP</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>!! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' =
mailing list. !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To =
unsubscribe or adjust !! your settings, send a mail message to =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; !! or look at <A =
HREF=3D"https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg</A>.=
</FONT></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C269FF.59D2A830--