Re: Comments on Chassis Mib

"David L. Arneson" <> Tue, 29 June 1993 16:17 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07005; 29 Jun 93 12:17 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07001; 29 Jun 93 12:17 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA25572; Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:56:11 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:56:10 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 AA25564; Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:56:08 -0400
Received: from by id aa07701; 29 Jun 93 11:57 EDT
Received: from ([]) by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25982; Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:57:08 EDT
Received: from yeti.ctron by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24013; Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:56:58 EDT
Received: by yeti.ctron (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07884; Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:50:10 EDT
Message-Id: <9306291550.AA07884@yeti.ctron>
To: eah <>
Subject: Re: Comments on Chassis Mib
In-Reply-To: Your message of "24 Jun 93 16:43:07 +0800." <9306242039.AA04542@pau.synnet.COM>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 93 11:44:02 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "David L. Arneson" <>

<< Much deleted >>
>- a chassis configuration mapping group
>    chasModuleToEntityModule,
>    chasModuleToEntityEntity
>    chasEntityToModuleEntity,
>    chasEntityToModuleModule
>    chasModuleToResourceModule,
>    chasModuleToResourceResourceType,
>    chasModuleResourceResource
>    chasResourceToModuleResourceType,
>    chasResourceToModuleResource,
>    chasResourceToModuleModule -- not an index object
>    chasEntityToResourceEntity,
>    chasEntityToResourceResourceType,
>    chasEntityToResourceResource
>    chasResourceToEntityResourceType,
>    chasResourceToEntityResource,
>    chasResourceToEntityEntity
I thought about this type of mapping when I was writting the draft dated
June 24.  However I like these many differnt mappings being asked for.
I think I can agree with the following tables:
I think the other tables eiter don't provide enough benefit or the information
can be implied from the other tables.

Perhaps These tables could be put in two groups.  The chasModuleToEntityTable
can be in with the current entity table.  Then the configuration group
would contain the resource table and these other 2 tables.  The configuration
group could still be optional.

Does anybody else have any thoughts on the subject?

>Each object in these would also be included in the index for the table,
>except as noted.  I know his may be a bit much, but I believe that it supports
>the many:many mappings and provides for flexible access.  The questions are: 
>    Do we even want/need this much flexibility?  
>    Is there a better way of coming up with it?  
>As for the problem with multiple mib views, personally I would prefer to 
>have a "single entry point" to some entity's mib which allowed me
>to see what views are available for that particular entity.  I would 
>much rather see something along those lines, than have every view for 
>every entity included in the chassis mib.
How do you like the MIB view table that I currently have in the draft?

>       Ed Heiner

/David  Arneson