Re: Chassis MIB comments

"David L. Arneson" <> Mon, 14 June 1993 13:02 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28931; 14 Jun 93 9:02 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28926; 14 Jun 93 9:02 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA29630; Mon, 14 Jun 93 08:34:02 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 14 Jun 1993 08:34:00 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 AA29622; Mon, 14 Jun 93 08:33:59 -0400
Received: from by id aa17180; 14 Jun 93 8:34 EDT
Received: from ([]) by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01676; Mon, 14 Jun 93 08:34:11 EDT
Received: from yeti.ctron by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14684; Mon, 14 Jun 93 08:32:41 EDT
Received: by yeti.ctron (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00371; Fri, 11 Jun 93 09:28:47 EDT
Message-Id: <9306111328.AA00371@yeti.ctron>
To: Chris Chiotasso <>
Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jun 93 16:32:53 EDT." <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 09:28:46 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "David L. Arneson" <>


Let me make sure I understand what you are asking for.  It seems that
you want to list the resource seperate from any of the configuration

Second you want to make the mappings between modules/resource/entities
as many:many:many.  Based on this understanding I would support this.
I have felt that the relationships between resource and entities should
be many:many.  The first thing that it would provide is the ability
to seperate entities so that each entity can be managed seperate.  In
other words we no longer need a brouter component we can have seperate
bridge entity and router entity each managable in it's own right.  This
would seem like a big win to me.  

What to others think of the idea.

/David Arneson