Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB

Shannon Nix <sdn@netlink1.netlink.com> Thu, 03 March 1994 17:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06589; 3 Mar 94 12:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06585; 3 Mar 94 12:41 EST
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11688; 3 Mar 94 12:41 EST
Received: from netlink1.netlink.com by hubbub.cisco.com with SMTP id AA10012 (8.6.4/IDA-1.5 for <snadlcmib@cisco.com>); Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:22:37 -0800
Received: by netlink1.netlink.com (5.57/Ultrix3.0-C) id AA05042; Thu, 3 Mar 94 12:24:27 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Shannon Nix <sdn@netlink1.netlink.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 1994 12:22:40 -0500
Message-Id: <44565.sdn@[192.154.57.1]>
X-Popmail-Charset: English
To: char-mib@pa.dec.com, snadlcmib@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Consensus Check - SDLC Objects for RS-232 MIB

On Thu, 3 Mar 94 10:25:51 -0500, Bob Stewart wrote:

>A few people spoke in favor of adding some SDLC-related objects to the RS-232
>MIB.  They were reposted just recently by Wayne Clark, SNA SDLC MIB editor.
>They could be added as a separate compliance group for SDLC, but I didn't do
>so due to the general apathy.  The following test of consensus is intended to
>insite response.  Depending on the response, I may try the other way around.
>
>******** Consensus Test *********
>
>Are there strong objections to leaving out the proposed SDLC objects?
>
> Bob

Hi Bob,


I believe that the "general apathy" that you refer to was actually a
mistaken impression that your dissenting comment on ONLY two of the
proposed objects implied acceptance of the balance.

I can certainly assert, as chair of the SNA DLC MIB WG, that the unanimous
concensus within our group was to request that these objects be added
to the RS-232 MIB.  They appeared, without exception, in every vendor-
specific SDLC MIB submitted, but we all agreed that they were really
physical-level objects.

Its very simple: One can NOT support SDLC without those objects.  We
have a number of vendors implementing and planning to implement the SDLC 
MIB.  These implementors have to get that information from somewhere.
We certainly prefer that it is from the standard MIB module at the 
appropriate layer, the RS-232 MIB.


Regards,
Shannon
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)   Shannon Nix    (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)      Netlink, Inc.     (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  3214 Spring Forest Rd.   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Raleigh N.C. 27604 USA   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Phone:  (919)-878-8612   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)  Fax:    (919)-872-2132   (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Internet: sdn@netlink.com (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) 
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)