RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sat, 07 February 2004 13:15 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02644 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:15:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApSIZ-0004xY-5N; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:15:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApSI2-0004tG-P2 for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:14:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02633 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:14:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApSI1-0003kk-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:14:29 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApSH5-0003hE-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:13:31 -0500
Received: from smtp.exodus.net ([66.35.230.237] helo=smtp02-w.exodus.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApSGp-0003do-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:13:15 -0500
Received: from ms101.mail1.com (ms101.mail1.com [209.1.5.174]) by smtp02-w.exodus.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i17AMMEv003046 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 04:22:22 -0600
Received: from ala-mrwtemp.thingmagic.com (unverified [24.61.30.237]) by accounting.espmail.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 5.2.5) with ESMTP id <B0018210224@ms101.mail1.com>; Sat, 7 Feb 2004 05:12:43 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040207080446.041f1288@ms101.mail1.com>
X-Sender: margaret@thingmagic.com@ms101.mail1.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:06:48 -0500
To: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB
Cc: entmib@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A1792D6@zcard0ka.ca.norte l.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: entmib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:entmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi All,

Could others please express their opinions on this issue?  Who
believes that these TCs should use a prefix (e.g. EntityOperStatus)
and why?  Who think that they should not include a prefix, and why?

Since we are not planning to meet in Seoul, it is important to
close this issue on the mailing list.

Thanks,
Margaret

At 02:34 PM 2/6/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>Hi
>
>I've created issue 322 to track this.
>
>The intention in creating the textual conventions was that they could be
>used in other MIBs that wanted to define state/status objects. Prefixing
>them with Entity makes this less obvious.
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:26 PM
>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; entmib@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB
>
>
>At 03:30 AM 2/6/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >> Given that this is a second WG Last Call for this document, that
> >> several people reviewed it during the previous WG Last Call, and that
> >> Sharon did a great job of maintaining an issue list and documenting
> >> the resolution of each issue, I am planning to interpret silence as
> >> agreement to send this document to the IESG.
> >>
> >I do not want to step on the toes of our WG chair, but yet... I would
> >actually appreciate if the people who spoke up (a while ago) that the
> >MIB was too complex, that they do state if they are now OK with this
> >version!
> >
> >PLEASE PARTICIPATE and express your opinion.
>
>comment on the MIB itself...
>
>the TCs should be named with a prefix. E.g.,
>OperState -> EntityOperState.  This applies to
>all the TCs in the draft.
>
>Andy
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>Entmib@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>Entmib@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib


_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
Entmib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib