Re: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

[Keith McCloghrie <kzm@cisco.com>]

If the iSNS editors think they can do this, then I think it's
a good idea.

Keith.
 
> 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.
> 
>