Re: mapping between entities and resources...

Bob Stewart <> Wed, 14 April 1993 18:11 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29317; 14 Apr 93 14:11 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29313; 14 Apr 93 14:10 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA04145; Wed, 14 Apr 93 13:21:34 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 14 Apr 1993 13:21:33 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 AA04137; Wed, 14 Apr 93 13:21:31 -0400
Received: by id <>; Wed, 14 Apr 93 12:22:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 12:22:04 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Stewart <>
In-Reply-To: Manu Kaycee's message of Wed, 14 Apr 93 11:51:18 EDT <>
Subject: Re: mapping between entities and resources...

{Speaking as WG member rather than chair.}

Admitting that I haven't yet carefully read and considered the recent
contributions, I wonder if it isn't best to at least encourage "resource" to
mean something relatively physical, like an external port or an internal
network segment.  Given that model, I'd expect to have, say, a bridge and a
router share a port resource, rather than create multiple virtual port
resources in different shapes and colors just so we can appear to have one to
one mapping.