Re: Working Group Status

Andrew Bierman <> Wed, 07 July 1993 22:42 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16009; 7 Jul 93 18:42 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16005; 7 Jul 93 18:42 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA02311; Wed, 7 Jul 93 18:28:25 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 7 Jul 1993 18:28:24 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 AA02302; Wed, 7 Jul 93 18:28:21 -0400
Received: from donatello ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11625; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:27:50 PDT
Received: by donatello (4.1/2.0N) id AA21260; Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:27:49 PDT
Message-Id: <9307072227.AA21260@donatello>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 93 15:27:49 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Bierman <>
Subject: Re: Working Group Status

> Speaking as the Area Director (note the From: line)...
> On April 14th, a message was sent to the Chassis MIB WG indicating that
> it had exceeded its lifetime and was being granted an extension until
> July 5th.  By that time, it was to have achieved concensus on a
> document.  As such, any meeting of the working group in Amsterdam would
> be inappropriate.
> ...
> Meeting in Amsterdam is not an option.  "Fair warning" was given twelve
> weeks ago, and there have been no complaints in the interim...
> /mtr
I am one of the guilty ones...guilty of assuming there was to
be a chassis MIB WG meeting simply because every version of the
agenda for the this IETF (that I've seen) included a Chassis
MIB WG meeting on July 14. Why wasn't it removed from the agenda
before this week? Why was it on the final agenda?

final comments -- chassis MIB WG
Depending on what one wanted out of the chassis MIB in the first place,
one can decide how close the current draft is to meeting those
expectations. There seems to be two camps:

1) those who want to use the chassis MIB to retrieve inventory data
and 'point' to other agents in the chassis

2) those who want to use the chassis MIB to manage arbitrary logical
and physical entities within the chassis

I don't think the two camps ever reconciled on the model because we
never reconciled on the goals.

I am in the first camp and think there is enough solid work there
to achieve the stated objective. 

I can't say the same for the objectives of the second camp.

In either case, a meeting next week would have helped...