Re: [NGO] access control

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 01:36:53PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>  
>> One of the many lessons learned from SMING was that vendors
>> would not tolerate a MIB language that changed -- at all.
>> It is way too expensive to support multiple DML variants.
>> A development approach in the IETF that relied on 'adding on'
>> bits and pieces to the MIB language was soundly rejected.
>> I think that logic still holds today.
> 
> I do not subscribe to this statement. The extensibility of SMIng has
> in fact been carried forward to YANG and as far as I can tell this
> will be used at least for vendor extensions.
> 

I don't see how this helps the standard at all.
Vendors can always do whatever they want in their own data models.
Producing incremental versions of the standard is not acceptable.
I'm not concerned at all if vendors want to create their own
proprietary languages.

I doubt vendors will accept a new standard DML every time
the IETF wants to add 'one more clause'.  I think it will be very
difficult to introduce new versions of the DML.

> Andy, why do you not get a team together to work out a decent access
> control proposal? This would be forward progress...

Because I already posted a draft on access control (as did 4 or 5 others)
and they were all ignored, so I'm pretty sure that's what would happen again.

> 
> /js
> 

Andy

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo