Subject: Should the DLSw MIB allow transport other than TCP?

From: "David D. Chen ((919)-254-6182 8-444)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 15:14:48 EDT

I was debating whether I should dump all the questions that Peter
and I generated all at once, or one at a time as I sort through
some of my notes.  I guess I choose the latter, hopefully it will
be easier to thread the discussion and encourage more participations.
As you will see that we have many questions, and we were keeping on
asking ourselves how user (and NMS applications) are going to use
the information.  Is there anyone plan to develop an application
(or incorporate into existing applications) to manage DLSw's?  May be
that will give us a clue how the MIB should look like, or what
index to a table should be, ... anyhow ...

One of questions we have is: should the DLSw MIB allow transports
other than TCP/IP?  As in the current 6611 MIB, objects with syntax
of IpAddress are used to describe a transport between DLSw routers.
Do we want to keep that restriction?  Or we should adopt a
technique, e.g., as used in Party MIB in SNMPv2 for different
transports.  That is, use two objects, TDomain and TAddress (or
transport protocol domain and transport addressing info), when a
transport is to be defined.  Any other techniques, comments?

Dave Chen
IBM Corporation

---

From: [email-masked] (David Matusow)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 18:34:29 -0400

>  transport is to be defined.  Any other techniques, comments?

allowing use of alternative transports would be good to do up front.  
Changes are inevitable and we might as well assume that we will change our 
minds in the future.  If nothing else, this just makes it more flexible 
and few of us are adverse to this...especially as it doesn't add much to 
to complexity.

David Matusow