RE: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum

["Sharon Chisholm" <[e-mail]>]

hi

Actually, the issue was more/also whether there was consensus to change the
current MIB a lot to diverge from the ITU-T model. We've diverged from it as
has made sense to the working group, but there were a few requests for
changes such as object renaming which in my personal view didn't make sense
to do since they seemed non-value add changes. My take on consensus to
diverge further is that we are somewhat split on the issue.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 11:28 AM
To: Randy Presuhn; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum



Hi Randy,

I did not see strong support for making changes to the Entity State 
MIB to bring it more in line with the ITU model, so I do not think 
that we have consensus to make these changes.

Unless you disagree with my assessment, Sharon should mark this issue 
as closed.

Margaret

At 12:30 PM -0800 3/25/04, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>>  From: "David T. Perkins" <[e-mail]>
>>  To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>; 
>> <[e-mail]>
>>  Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:04 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
>...
>>  Randy - it gets back to a fundamental question, which is  "Is the 
>> ITU model and the specification for it worthwhile?"  In the 10+ years 
>> that I have asked this question, I have NEVER  gotten an answer. 
>> NEVER! In my own extensive analysis  (which included creating both 
>> state and alarm MIB modules  that are MUCH closer to the ITU models 
>> and specs than the  documents created in the IETF), it just isn't 
>> forth it.  Now, if someone would volunteer to show me an 
>> implementation  where the benefits surpass the costs, I'll create 
>> time to  learn from them, and change my tune. But pointing me to
>>  documents and manuals just doesn't cut it. Is this clear?
>...
>
>I think the difference here is in our understanding of "the ITU model". 
>It sounds like your understand it to mean *all* the stuff in X.731.
>However, that's *not* how X.731 was meant to be used.   It provides
>a core (Administrative/Usage/Operational states) of rather wide 
>applicability, and a bunch of other knobs and dials that an object 
>definer can use when appropriate.  I'm arguing to keep this thing 
>simple, i.e., not add anything (even from X.731) unless there is a 
>clear need for it.
>
>So, if one were defining an object class using X.731, and only 
>operational state was meaningful, then objects of that class simply 
>wouldn't have administrative or usage states.  This maps well to using 
>the TCs in this MIB module.  From my perspective, this alone would be 
>useful.  When one has to do this in something like the entity state 
>table, it is not as nice.  The workaround of adding additional "not 
>applicable" values to the enumerations is ugly, but it's the kind of 
>ugliness we're accustomed to in the SNMP world.
>
>Returning to your question: is having operational state worthwhile? 
>Absolutely, for the objects that need it.  Is having administrative 
>state worthwhile?  Same answer.  This is how X.731 was designed to be 
>used.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib


_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib