attachment

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <TITLE>CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Hi Rick</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They're all wet - they don't know their own IETF MIB reference syntax!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Quoting verbatim from CIMv2.11 'CIM_BGPProtocolEndpoint.mof':</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>  MappingStrings { "MIB.IETF|BGP4-MIB.bgpConnectRetryInterval" }]</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Note, none of this pseudo-pipe syntax - THOUSANDS of examples</DIV> <DIV>in the above syntax in CIMv2.11.  These guys should read their</DIV> <DIV>own stuff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Cheers,</DIV> <DIV>- Ira</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> 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@sharplabs.com <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Richard_Landau@Dell.com Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:57 PM To: wims@pwg.org Cc: Winston_Bumpus@Dell.com Subject: WIMS> CIM> CIM Core discussion about MappingString format </DIV> 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 </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> -- 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