Re: Mib questions

[Bob Stewart <[e-mail]>]

That's what I wanted to see, more contributors.

>I know this has come up before, but I don't think it's been resolved.
>Should we allow logical devices (entities) to be made up of multiple
>functions, or should they be broken down into their basic functional
>components (with each component being a separate logical device/entity).
>
>What are the issues associated with each approach?

So far it was resolved by leaving it unchanged.  The biggest issue I can think
of for forcing division is the multiplication of MIB views and parties to get
to all the supposedly separate agents.  That seems a heavy burden unless it's
necessary.  I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a
terminal-server-router-bridge-repeater-toaster all represented by a single
agent.  

>It seems to me that the information must be identical, except for the
>time-related objects.

Well put.

>> >9) What are some situations the it would be appropriate to use
>> >   a "sparse" slot table?
>> 
>> Any situation the implementor chooses.  You might choose to do that in a
>> 2-slot chassis or one the size of Texas.
>> 
>
>Could interoperability problems arise out of letting the
>implementors choose?

The potential problem is similar to the problem of 'invalid' entries or empty
groups in a repeater.  We let both of those stand as implementor's choice.

	Bob