The future

"David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)" <arneson@ctron.com> Tue, 15 December 1992 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA14626; Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:42:15 -0500
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:42:14 GMT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from nic.near.net by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA14618; Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:42:13 -0500
Received: from ctron.com by nic.near.net id aa24222; 15 Dec 92 11:42 EST
Received: from yeti.ctron ([134.141.40.159]) by ctron.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26916; Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:41:57 EST
Received: by yeti.ctron (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00640; Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:40:29 EST
Message-Id: <9212151640.AA00640@yeti.ctron>
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Subject: The future
Reply-To: arneson@ctron.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 11:37:30 -0500
From: "David L. Arneson (arneson@ctron.com)" <arneson@ctron.com>


I have read over Pete Wilson's proposal.  I like what I saw there for the
most part.  By and large it is waht we seemed to be agreeing that we 
needed during the working group meeting.  I already have a start on
the overview section of the MIB.

I do have a couple of concerns I wanted to bring up.  First I'm not sure we
want to delete the concept of the segment that an entity is connected to.
I feel that we can view segment as either backplane segment or backbone,
rib etc in a more general sense.  I feel the information is useful
to have in this MIB.

The other concern I have is that Pete treats the backplane as a module.
I question if this is the correct view for us to take?  I could go either
way I just want to get other views.


/David Arneson [arneson@ctron.com] [ (603)337-5064 ]