Re: Talk about MIB

Guenter Roeck <> Fri, 09 July 1993 07:40 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00660; 9 Jul 93 3:40 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00656; 9 Jul 93 3:40 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA03499; Fri, 9 Jul 93 03:11:20 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 9 Jul 1993 03:11:16 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA03439; Fri, 9 Jul 93 03:10:52 -0400
Received: from by with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0oECY8-000CnHC; Fri, 9 Jul 93 09:07 MET DST
Received: by (/\==/\ Smail3.1.25.1 #25.8) id <>; Fri, 9 Jul 93 09:08 MET DST
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Guenter Roeck <>
Subject: Re: Talk about MIB
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 93 9:08:02 MET DST
In-Reply-To: <>; from "IETF Area Director for Network Management" at Jul 8, 93 10:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

> > Since we were all planning to meet at 1:30 on Wednesday
> > why don't we plan to meet at the same time.
> There will be no meeting relating to the Chassis MIB effort at
> Amsterdam.  I refer you to my message of yesterday which details the
> options open to the WG.  Meeting next week isn't one of them.
It seems to me that Marshal does not like to see that the group
meets and meets and meets... 

I attended the two chassis MIB meetings last year, and I hoped
it would be no problem to get the MIB out at the march meeting this
year. Unfortunately, there seems to be much talk in the group at
IETF meetings, but not much more. Furthermore, since I have seen
the results (draft #1 and #2) of the last meeting, it seems to
me that the MIB gets further and further away of what we talked about
last year. Thus, I agree with Marshal at this point - I do not see 
any possible success for a meeting in Amsterdam. It would probably
cause more talk, more changes and nothing else.

For my feeling, the MIB got much too complicated in the meantime. Please
remember what happened to the Ethernet MIB - it gets stripped more
and more, and has now reached a point where it is very easy to implement it.

Why should we do the same thing with the chassis MIB ? 

I strongly suggest to take the chassis MIB draft #0 and put it to
the standards track, without more than syntactical changes, if this
should be necessary. As far as I can see it, this would be the only
way to keep the MIB alive, since all other drafts are much more 
incomplete. It also would be the only way to get a MIB that
is really usable and implementable.


Guenter Roeck  -  Conware GmbH                  Phone: (0049) 721-9495-0
  Internet:                    Fax:   (0049) 721-9495-146