> I appreciate the pointer to the SubAgent group, however, I'm not
> sure multiple agents per device is as prevalent a problem with
> printers as is the device with multiple interfaces.
On the subject of multiple interfaces, we should probably make
sure everyone is reading the same RFCs. As you know Lloyd and I
are working on compiling the list of all the required changes to
RFC 1759 along with the justification.
A big change is that all SNMP RFCs are required to support
SNMPv2. This means that our references to MIB II, RFC 1213, now
have to be updated to the two documents that replace it. These
RFC 1907 "MIB for Version2 of SNMPv2"
RFC 1573 "Evolution of the Interfaces Group of MIB-II"
I thought RFC 1573 did a pretty comprehensive job of addressing
multiple interfaces. What do you think is missing?
> When we try to get too granular with this scheme, then we run into
> problems. Gail has demonstrated this lately with each device (printer)
> sharing some other device (storage) in the hrMIB. But, I don't think
> this is the "multiple agent problem" (is it?). This is lack of
> demarcation of shared resources (and I haven't quite decided how to
> respond to Gail's dilemma).
I will have to reread Gail's email.
> I don't know what prompted your note on AgentX.
I am attempting to keep us focused on getting to DRAFT
Standard. We cannot afford to drift off into other areas that
other groups are handling. That's all.