RE: WG ACTION: Chassis MIB (chassis) to

{3COM/PDD/PeteW} Wed, 21 July 1993 16:07 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05514; 21 Jul 93 12:07 EDT
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05503; 21 Jul 93 12:07 EDT
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA04829; Wed, 21 Jul 93 11:40:42 -0400
X-Resent-To: chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU ; Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:40:40 EDT
Errors-To: owner-chassismib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from gatekeeper.3Com.COM by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK) id AA04814; Wed, 21 Jul 93 11:40:36 -0400
Received: from gw.3Com.COM by gatekeeper.3Com.COM with SMTP id AA13822 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4-910725 for <>); Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:40:33 -0700
Received: by gw.3Com.COM id AA15312 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for; Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:40:30 -0700
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 93 16:38 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: {3COM/PDD/PeteW}
Subject: RE: WG ACTION: Chassis MIB (chassis) to
Message-Id: <930721.084058@3Mail.3Com.COM>
Msg-Date: 1993-07-21
Msg-Time: 16:35

Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: Wilson, Peter
To:  Chassis MIB
Subject:  RE: WG ACTION: Chassis MIB (chassis) to conc
Date: 1993-07-21 16:30
Message ID: 5BE7E386
Conversation ID: 5BE7E386


>>	I personally believe that a call for vote on one of the drafts
>>	published will show that there is more of a consensus than pepole
>>	think.  I call upon the working group members who want to see this MIB
>>	become a standard to express this "loud and clear" on the mailing list
>>	so that the AD and the IESG see that public opinion is not in favour of
>>	their decision.
>LOUD AND CLEAR: We do want this MIB to become a standard.
> But, as Marshal wrote in his last message concerning this subject, it 
> that the WG is procedurally dead.
> In Amsterdam, an open meeting of the NM Area Directorate was held. A
> moratorium on new WGs was declared untill the end of 1993, 'due to lack
> of senior technical resources'. This would mean that in order to have the
> process of standardisation revived, we should not only clearly articulate
> our wish in this direction, but also have somebody consequently assuming
> the task of chairing this effort. I do not think that we lack the 
> on this regard.
> According to what I heard in Amsterdam, I am not optimistic upon the 
>of reversing this decision before the end of 1993. There might be an apeal
>procedure, but I bet you would rather use the time in building an
>implementation than in finding out how to use the apeal procedure.

There does still seem to be quite a lot of work to do. The mailing list is 
still working so its probably a good idea to use this list to discuss and 
refine the current work ready for the working group to be reformed next 
year. By that time I'd hope we could go straight to work with a MIB we are 
all fairly happy with and almost finish as soon as we start.

A couple of comments I heard in Amsterdam suggested that people are unclear 
that there is enough experience with new 'multi-service' chassis at the 
present time to come to any kind of concensus. Certainly the way the group 
is splitting at the moment with regards to the model into two directions 
would seem to support this view. It would also appear that different vendors 
have radically different approaches to chassis management. For example I 
expect the chassis MIB to provide configuration information AND 
configuration control (so I can move ports between entities). This seems 
sensible to me, otherwise who else is going to do it? Other people want a 
chassis MIB that only reports configuration and have a seperate activity to 
control configuration, again probably swayed by their experience.

Given these comments it seems to me that we are unlikely to reach any real 
concensus in the immediate future. As I said I think we use this mail group 
for discussion and HOPE we can work something out in the next few months so 
we can restart the WG.