Re: mapping between entities and resources...

Manu Kaycee <> Wed, 14 April 1993 19:49 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01988; 14 Apr 93 15:49 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01984; 14 Apr 93 15:49 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA14707; Wed, 14 Apr 93 15:12:48 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 14 Apr 1993 15:12:47 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 AA14692; Wed, 14 Apr 93 15:12:41 -0400
Received: from ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8]) id AA09843; Wed, 14 Apr 93 12:12:22 PDT
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29587; Wed, 14 Apr 93 15:12:19 EDT
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05754; Wed, 14 Apr 93 15:13:14 EDT
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 15:13:14 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Manu Kaycee <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: mapping between entities and resources...


> Admitting that I haven't yet carefully read and considered the recent
> contributions, I wonder if it isn't best to at least encourage "resource" to
> mean something relatively physical, like an external port or an internal
> network segment.  Given that model, I'd expect to have, say, a bridge and a
> router share a port resource, rather than create multiple virtual port
> resources in different shapes and colors just so we can appear to have one to
> one mapping.

I agree with you, in more ways that one.  Such an attribute adds to elegance.

As discussed earlier, one could, say, define the proverbial "brouter" which
would encapsulate the bridge and router(s) into a single entity instance.
I don't quite like it, but can learn to live with it.

I'm curious.  How do other feel?

> 	Bob