Re: Working Group Status

Guenter Roeck <roeck@conware.de> Thu, 08 July 1993 10:28 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01138; 8 Jul 93 6:28 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01134; 8 Jul 93 6:28 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA05237; Thu, 8 Jul 93 04:06:15 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 8 Jul 1993 04:06:13 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from relay.conware.de by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA05195; Thu, 8 Jul 93 04:05:48 -0400
Received: from slc_2.conware.de by relay.conware.de with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0oDqug-000Ci5C; Thu, 8 Jul 93 10:01 MET DST
Received: by slc_2.conware.de (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.8) id <m0oDqvW-000021C@slc_2.conware.de>; Thu, 8 Jul 93 10:01 MET DST
Message-Id: <m0oDqvW-000021C@slc_2.conware.de>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Guenter Roeck <roeck@conware.de>
Subject: Re: Working Group Status
To: Andrew Bierman <abierman@synoptics.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 10:01:54 MET DST
Cc: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: <9307072227.AA21260@donatello>; from "Andrew Bierman" at Jul 7, 93 3:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> 
> final comments -- chassis MIB WG
> ---------------------------------
> Depending on what one wanted out of the chassis MIB in the first place,
> one can decide how close the current draft is to meeting those
> expectations. There seems to be two camps:
> 
> 1) those who want to use the chassis MIB to retrieve inventory data
> and 'point' to other agents in the chassis
> 
> 2) those who want to use the chassis MIB to manage arbitrary logical
> and physical entities within the chassis
> 
> I don't think the two camps ever reconciled on the model because we
> never reconciled on the goals.
> 
> I am in the first camp and think there is enough solid work there
> to achieve the stated objective. 

I'm in the first camp as well. Actually, when I reviewed the draft 
this week, I did not have the newest version; thus my mail earlier in
this week does not reflect my statement to the current MIB.
I don't know which one I looked into, but it is totally different
to the current one.

In the meantime, I checked the newest version as well.
I think it is just unusable for us; I don't know what a lot
of objects (and groups) are supposed to mean and how to implement
those objects, and furthermore there are a lot of groups I don't
know what to do with (in real life, not theoretically).

From our point of view, the MIB made a long step backwards
in the last two months.

Guenter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guenter Roeck  -  Conware GmbH                  Phone: (0049) 721-9495-0
  Internet: roeck@conware.de                    Fax:   (0049) 721-9495-146
--------------------------------------------------------------------------