Huh? I'm puzzled.
- The "Section 4" example in your email was entirely correct, and they
will agree as soon as we send them a couple words of context.
- MIB references in MappingStrings are explicitly different. The
examples in the CIM Infrastructure Spec and dozens of MOFs use exactly
the syntax you want, also, that is
MIB.IETF|Printer-MIB.prtCurrentLocalization
- MIFs also have a special format. Fortunately we don't have to deal
with any of those. (Harry rescued printers from MIFness many years ago,
thank you Harry.)
After reading the actual so-called rules on this topic, in the CIM
Infrastructure Spec (DSP0004), sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, I was very
confused. However, after looking at many dozens of citations in the
existing MOFs, I find that there is much consistency. And the formats
you proposed match nicely.
Let's declare victory and move on.
rick
________________________________
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 16:15
To: Landau, Richard; wims at pwg.org
Cc: Bumpus, Winston
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format
Hi Rick
They're all wet - they don't know their own IETF MIB reference syntax!
Quoting verbatim from CIMv2.11 'CIM_BGPProtocolEndpoint.mof':
MappingStrings { "MIB.IETF|BGP4-MIB.bgpConnectRetryInterval" }]
Note, none of this pseudo-pipe syntax - THOUSANDS of examples
in the above syntax in CIMv2.11. These guys should read their
own stuff.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
Richard_Landau at Dell.com
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:57 PM
To: wims at pwg.org
Cc: Winston_Bumpus at Dell.com
Subject: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString
format
Went well. Not perfectly, which is my fault but easily fixed.
Discussion points:
- MIB.PWG okay.
- Hyphen instead of dot okay. The only reasonable alternative
is %2E or some such, which is much more hostile to humans.
- "Section 4" was questioned. I, unfortunately, could not get
the doc (PWG5101.1) open in time to look at the section, and I didn't
remember it. The group's statement was If there is a table or data
structure containing a property, one should use pipe syntax, e.g.,
doc.authority | structurename | propertyname.
See examples in the new association
CIM_SCSIInitiatorTargetLogicalUnitPath, which is, horrors, a three-way
association, but includes several examples of this syntax, e.g.,
MP_API.SNIA|MP_PATH_LOGICAL_UNIT_PROPERTIES|deviceFileName
HOWEVER, that doesn't apply to the PWG5101.1 "Section 4 Media
Color Names" case, anyway. As I read it, Section 4 is a textual
convention, one of three in the doc, which might be specified as a
syntactic restriction on any number of properties in other
specifications. There is no property name within a structure to be
cited. I assume that the same reasoning would apply to any other
textual convention if there were no other formal syntax to apply. The
IANA textual conventions that we cite do have a reasonable structure
because they are defined in MIBs, so that case is not comparable.
Conclusion: no problem.
I closed off the debate by saying that we would take a look at
it and send a revised email with context so that they could understand
the "Section 4" case, however we resolved it. We should send a very
simple revised message (again to wg-cimcore), with wording about textual
conventions but not in formal MIB or other syntax, and maybe an extract
of Section 4 from the document, declare victory, and move on. Ira, can
you make the slight additions?
Also, a nit, I found a minor typo in PWG5101.1 when I was
looking at our friend Section 4: the first para ends with "...as defined
in Table ." It should say "Table 1."
Have a good weekend, all.
rick
----------------------
Richard_Landau(at)dell(dot)com, Stds & System Mgt Arch, CTO
Office
+1-512-728-9023, One Dell Way, RR5-3 MS 8509, Round Rock, TX
78682
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date:
3/24/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/291 - Release Date: 3/24/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20060327/1d462758/attachment.html