Re: [Entmib] CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation

Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com> Tue, 17 August 2004 21:46 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16637 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BxBeE-0000sz-Nt; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:37:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BxBYp-0007p0-Hf for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:32:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15556 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:32:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from thumper.research.telcordia.com ([128.96.41.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BxBem-0004iF-41 for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:38:21 -0400
Received: from shannon.research.telcordia.com (shannon-83.research.telcordia.com [128.96.83.11]) by thumper.research.telcordia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i7HLVI5C012356 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:31:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kaj-100.research.telcordia.com (kaj-100.cc.telcordia.com [128.96.171.145]) by shannon.research.telcordia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25264 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:31:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040817172040.026f8378@128.96.81.11>
X-Sender: kaj@128.96.81.11
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:31:24 -0400
To: entmib@ietf.org
From: Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040816094625.022f49c0@127.0.0.1>
References: <20040816082053.GD1761@iu-bremen.de> <p0602041fbd39fdb5fff2@[130.129.130.34]> <p0602041fbd39fdb5fff2@[130.129.130.34]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_-1772244533==_"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a0a359c89658364740632bd00d43825
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: entmib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-bounces@ietf.org

i've attached an update of the entity supplemental miblet.
the updates concern:
- change of the title
- inclusion of Juergen's suggested URN text & object
- reference to a to be published rfc for CLEI URN namespace

further actions:
- as per the emerging consensus, it is better to
    insert the two objects in the entPhysicalEntry
    of the entity mib itself; in that case all that is needed
    is to cut&paste from the attached
- we'll post the draft for the for CLEI URN namespace request soon
- any other comments?

kaj



At 09:53 AM 8/16/2004 -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:
>HI,
>
>The below sounds like a good suggestion to me.
>
>At 10:20 AM 8/16/2004 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:41:02PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >
> >> During the Entity MIB meeting at IETF 60 in San Diego, there was
> >> consensus in the room  for the following course of action:
> >>
> >> (1) Pull the Entity State MIB document out of IESG processing
> >> (currently submitted for publication as a Draft Standard)
> >>
> >> (2) Update the document to undo the deprecation of the
> >> entAliasMapping identifier, and
> >>
> >> (3) Re-submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for publication as a
> >> Proposed Standard.
> >>
> >> We now need to confirm this consensus on the mailing list.  Are there
> >> any objections to taking this course of action?  Other comments?
> >
> >Sounds like a good plan to me. But if we recycle at Proposed, why do
> >we then not simply put the entSupplPhysicalManufacturingDate and the
> >entSupplPhysicalManufacturerInfo objects into the entPhysicalEntry
> >where they actually belong? A new compliance statement would deal
> >with these additions so existing implementations that comply to
> >entity2Compliance would not be affected.
> >
> >/js
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>Entmib@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
REACH INFO HAS CHANGED; NEW INFO PER 7/19/04:
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
1 Telcordia Drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854-3923
Email: kaj@research.telcordia.com
Tel: (732) 699-6068
Fax: (732) 336-2336

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