[Entmib] RE: Index for table entStateTable

Hi

With respect to the first point, can you provide me with the specific
reference? I've just done a quick look through RFC2578 and the MIB Review
Guidelines document and could not find what you were referring to.

With respect to the second point, it is a sparse relationship because that
was working group consensus. I didn't agree with the logic, so it's
difficult to recall.  If I remember correctly, the logic was that not all
equipment would be able to report all the status information, so people
wanted a sparse augment. I'll propose adding some text to this affect. Of
course people could just as easily just use the 'notApplicable' (or whatever
we decided to call it) value for the enumeration instead.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:11 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; entmib@ietf.org
Subject: Index for table entStateTable

HI,

The SMI requires that the DESCRIPTION for the row of a table describe the
index item is that item is not a column in the table. And the DESCRIPTION
clause for entStateEntry does not provide the needed info.

In general, why is there a "sparse relationship". When should state be
provided and when should it not?

/david t. perkins

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