[eman] battery-mib and entity-mib reference
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605D521F8EA6 for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVLliQJWsJgw for <eman@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A9C21F8E75 for <eman@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4EAfTnC024117 for <eman@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4EAfDN5023335 for <eman@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <519214C9.8060609@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 12:41:13 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: eman mailing list <eman@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090507060608000800010306"
Subject: [eman] battery-mib and entity-mib reference
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:41:35 -0000
Dear battery-mib authors,
I see:
If there is an implementation of the Entity MIB module [RFC4133 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4133>] that
identifies the batteries to be reported on by individual values for
managed object entPhysicalIndex, then it is REQUIRED that these
values are used as index values for the batteryTable.
You should reference the RFC4133bis, draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis-06
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-rfc4133bis/>.
Btw, this draft is right now in AUTH48.
Regards, Benoit
- [eman] battery-mib and entity-mib reference Benoit Claise