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

"Sharon Chisholm" <> Sun, 02 May 2004 09:59 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07726 for <>; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:59:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKDdi-0008U3-7E; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:52:02 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKDbu-0007oF-Ms for; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:50:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05278 for <>; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKCsy-0003FW-5r for; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:03:44 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKCs5-00032a-00 for; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:02:50 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKCre-0002om-00 for; Sun, 02 May 2004 05:02:22 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i4291q904403 for <>; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <JCT8NRKZ>; Sun, 2 May 2004 05:01:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 05:01:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [] 
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 11:28 AM
To: Randy Presuhn;
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.


At 12:30 PM -0800 3/25/04, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>>  From: "David T. Perkins" <>
>>  To: "Randy Presuhn" <>; 
>> <>
>>  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 
>Entmib mailing list

Entmib mailing list

Entmib mailing list