Re: Chassis MIB comments

Bob Stewart <> Fri, 18 June 1993 20:45 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13768; 18 Jun 93 16:45 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13764; 18 Jun 93 16:45 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA21159; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:22:49 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Fri, 18 Jun 1993 16:22:48 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 AA21151; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:22:46 -0400
Received: by id <>; Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:23:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 16:23:24 -0500
Message-Id: <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Stewart <>
In-Reply-To: Manu Kaycee's message of Mon, 14 Jun 93 10:38:09 EDT <>
Subject: Re: Chassis MIB comments

>To summarize recent discussions:
>	1. the existing MIB does not allow logical entities to overlap
>	   spatially
>	2. due to item 1, sufficient support for common configurations
>	   is not provided
>	3. provisioning of multiple access profiles would be useful

As a general principle, it is important that we be able to express sufficient
information about common configurations.  I'm not convince that we all agree
on the meaning of "sufficient".

>Four individuals have participated in these discussions, with three
>believing that allowing for items 1 and 2 is very important. (There
>seems to be general agreement on item 3.)

>What do others think?

The apathy level on this mailing list has remained somewhat off the scale.  A
few parties have tried real hard to get some work done, and everybody else is
just lurking.  This is not entirely consistent with the level of discussion at

>Since we don't have much time, I would like to ask the WG chair for
>guidance and suggestions.

The WG chair feels quite guilty about how little time he's put into this WG,
but his employer is making significant demands on his time.  Guess who wins.

It would be good to get this work finished, but we don't seem to be settling
very well.  People seem apathetic or confused, or just too busy to think about
it.  It would be helpful if people would at least express that level of input.
We need a sense of:

    1)	Like it as it is

    2)	It needs a little more work

    3)	It needs a lot more work

    4)	Don't care

    5)	Care, but don't have time to assess work needed

    6)	Care, but don't understand

    7)	Let's wait for OSI to define it

    8)	We don't need to finish this

If you don't say anything, you default to 4.  Choices 7 and 8 are the same.

I wish I could be more helpful.