Chassis MIB and SNMPv2

Dan Romascanu <> Tue, 01 June 1993 17:26 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09160; 1 Jun 93 13:26 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09156; 1 Jun 93 13:25 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA07246; Tue, 1 Jun 93 12:58:13 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 1 Jun 1993 12:58:12 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 AA07154; Tue, 1 Jun 93 12:58:02 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id AA07824 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <>); Tue, 1 Jun 1993 19:57:13 +0300
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02858; Tue, 1 Jun 93 19:58:33 IDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA19341; Tue, 1 Jun 93 19:58:39 IDT
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1993 19:58:39 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dan Romascanu <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Chassis MIB and SNMPv2

I am at the first reading of the Chassis MIB draft posted last Friday by
David Anderson. I have several remarks, but I keep them aside for the
moment because there is one question which I feel should be answered before
everything. This MIB imports Party and Context from RFC-1447 which is
belonging to the SNMPv2 stack and is out of the Network Management Framework
as defined by Chapter 2.
Is this a mistake? Is it intentional? If yes, how should SNMPv1 agents behave?
(implementation of chasEntityTable where these types are used is mandatory).
As far as I understand, after Columbus the consensus was that for the moment
we continue to write MIBs 'SNMPv1 Style'. But this leaves us without a proper
definition of parties and context. Are we in some kind of a catch or do I miss

Dan Romascanu, LANNET Data Communications Ltd., Tel Aviv, ISRAEL
Voice: 972-3-6458414, Fax: 972-3-5447146