Subject: Re: for your edification and thorough enjoyment

From: [email-masked] (Fred Baker)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:48:07 -0800

At 12:23 PM 11/7/96, John Wroclawski wrote:
>I may be missing the obvious, but in the intserv MIB(s) I didn't see what
>I'd have thought was a most basic function - administratively creating or
>deleting a reservation.

You never asked for that. It's in the RSVP MIB (you create path or
reservation state entries, as though you had recieved a path or reservation
message, and the described-in-much-detail periodic processing of such
messages takes over from there), and I have taken quite a scalding for
putting it in. Folks seem to think that only my company has a need for such
a thing.

Besides, no *other* integrated services document discusses the concept of
putting in a reservation at all. They discuss the concept that *if* there
were a way to put in a reservation (which one would do in a reservation
protocol or whatever), then that reservation would have some given set of
attributes.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I don't suffer from insanity.  I enjoy every minute of it.

---

From: John Wroclawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 14:40:31 -0500

At 10:48 AM -0800 11/7/96, Fred Baker wrote:
>You never asked for that.

Hm. I think we've talked about network management being one way to set up
resources since almost day one. One place where this shows up concretely is
that the parameter namespace is intentionally defined in a way which maps
trivially into MIB OID's.

>protocol or whatever), then that reservation would have some given set of

True. I'd have assumed that if the "or whatever" was network management,
than the defining document would be the MIB spec, just as if the method was
was RSVP then the defining document would be the RSVP spec. Perhaps I've
misunderstood the scope of MIB specs, but if not, I'm not sure what the
other documents need to say.

-john