Subject: Non-member submission from [Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>]

From: "Ted Brunner 503.627.1317" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 00:21:54 -0700

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:05:44 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Non-member submission from ["Gregory Waines"
  <[email-masked]>]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:04 PM 6/11/98 -0700, sdurham wrote:
>>  Shouldn't the ifStackTable be mandatory if the ifmib implementation
 ...
>I would be inclined to agree.  If the ifStackTable is not mandatory for
>implementations supporting sublayering, how "less manageable" does this
>make sublayers? 

My understanding here is that we're loosening the requirement in the face
of reality rather than for good management reasons.

Open systems like Unix may find it impossible to implement the
ifStackTable, so we're making it not required, even though it is necessary
for seeing how things are strung together.

I've never been in favor of such approaches, crippling the management
thrust so some systems can make better marketing claims.

I suppose we can just leave it for the closed systems and the more
tractable open systems to support the ifStackTable in a separate MIB that
you really need if you're going to use software to sort out complex
interface stacks.

I guess buyers already have to know that "compliant" doesn't mean
"complete" or "useful."

	Bob

------- End of Forwarded Message