RE: FC Management MIB - proposed changes

["KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1)" <marjorie_krueger@hp.com>]

Keith,
A little background on the intent of these two MIBs - the FC Mgmt MIB was
originally intended to represent "everything that had Fibre Channel Ports".
In that sense, it is analogous to the Interfaces Group MIB.  RFC 2837 was
intended to represent FC Fabric Switch information - more like a "router
MIB" - intended to represent the information specific to the functions of a
Fibre Channel fabric switch.  That doesn't seem to me to be information that
should be in an "interfaces MIB".  It doesn't seem logical to replace RFC
2837 with a new FC Mgmt MIB, the intent of both MIBs is/should be much
different.  The name server stuff never belonged in the FC Mgmt MIB, it (and
other Fabric Services information) belongs in the RFC 2837 MIB.

Thoughts?
Marjorie


> 3. With 20x20 hindsight, the following observations can be made with
> respect to RFC 2837:
> 
> - the reason that we now have the issue of how it relates to the
>   FC-Mgmt MIB is because it was written as a Fabric Element MIB;
>   this issue would not have arisen if it had been written as a
>   Fibre Channel interface MIB.
> - it should have extended the ifTable, rather than 
> overlapping with it,
> - it should not have defined the fcFeModuleTable, which overlaps with
>   the Entity MIB.
> - and it should have specified (at least) its octet counters 
> as Counter64.
> 
> Given these problems, I propose that the new FC-Mgmt MIB be specified
> as a replacement for RFC 2837.
>