RE: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

["Bill Strahm" <bill@sanera.net>]

Keith,

On the topic of Simple Name Service, would it be possible to make this
generic enough to work within the iSNS MIB.  I would like to see the iSNS
MIB be able to cover both iSCSI and FC if it is at all possible.  Any
reasons this can't be done ?  Does the iSNS editors want to try to
incorporate this into their design (how hard would it be, is it even
possible ?)

Bill
+========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
Bill Strahm     Software Development is a race between Programmers
Member of the   trying to build bigger and better idiot proof software
Technical Staff and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better
bill@sanera.net idiots.
(503) 601-0263  So far the Universe is winning --- Rich Cook


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Keith McCloghrie
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:43 AM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Cc: Keith McCloghrie
Subject: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

<snip>

5. Regarding the the MIB objects for the "Simple Name Service",
I see two possible solutions:

i. retain the MIB objects but focus them on GS-3's Unzoned Name Service.

ii. remove the MIB objects for the "Simple Name Service" from this MIB.
   If there is WG consensus that a MIB is needed for one of the GS-3 Name
   Services, and for which one, then the appropriate set of MIB objects
   can be defined in a new MIB.

Of these two, I propose to investigate solution i), and if it proves
feasible, then to adopt it;  if not, to fall back to solution ii).

<snip>

Keith.