Re: A new table

[Bob Stewart <[e-mail]>]

I'm not convinced we should or can include Interface related information in
the Chassis MIB.  The definition of interface entries is an area where we have
confusion and different models within systems that supposedly have full
knowledge of themselves.  Assuming that such information is fully available
from the system's own MIB, it would be redundant in the Chassis MIB.  I don't
believe that the system providing the Chassis MIB overview can be assumed to
have such intimate information about the other systems in the chassis.  We've
already agreed that we can't expect the segment mapping to be read-write, due
to implementation specific considerations.  We're already imposing on
implementations by expecting to have the information read-only.  Understanding
some other system's interface table is asking even more, and perhaps too much.

I can go along with having a relatively vague read-only indication of what
segment I have to get to to find a system in the chassis.  Without that I
could literally lose things that I misconfigured.  But any sort of detail
about that system is going to have to come from its own MIB.  It seems that we
need the principle that the Chassis MIB will contain only what is necessary to
find out what's in the Chassis and give you the first clues you need to get to
those systems directly.  If we do more than that we're on a slippery slope
into the other system's entire MIB, without any principles for where to stop.

	Bob