Werner Almesberger wrote:
>
> [ Retrying ... this was blackholed by the list processor last Monday ]
>
> Yves T'Joens wrote:
> > we haven't used any specification language so far, CIM is a pretty good
> > candidate indeed. Internally we originally used a BNF notation scheme
> > (which is a bit less heavy), but i would support going for CIM.
>
> I was also hoping that BNF would be sufficient ... CIM is powerful but
> I suspect it may add a lot of unnecessary overhead ... (hmm, I see a
> specification language war coming up ;-)
>
> > but you don't need the policy framework architecture for supporting the SLS
> > negotiation. In that sense, it is different enough to allow the creation
> > of a different working group.
>
> Agreed. Also, as far as I can tell, the scope of the SLS work can
> be quite clearly defined. So there is hope that things won't get
> side-tracked too much. (Which is always a risk if you add work on
> peripheral issues to a group with a broad spectrum.)
Ok, lets try to clearly define it. What is the resulting standard? What
is the basic architecture/framework? How does is it differ from the PDB
work?
I am not against building the group, but these questions need to be
answered.
Marcus
--Dr. Marcus Brunner C&C Research Laboratories NEC Europe Ltd.
E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner
Adenauerplatz 6 D-69115 Heidelberg Germany
Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129 Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 18 2000 - 13:27:17 CEST