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

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sat, 01 May 2004 17:10 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03259 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 May 2004 13:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJxcn-0001MI-GT; Sat, 01 May 2004 12:46:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJwQf-0005eD-CJ for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:29:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25846 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 May 2004 11:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJwQe-0003pK-E8 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:29:24 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJwQ0-0003bm-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:28:45 -0400
Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJwOy-0003Kx-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:27:40 -0400
Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.64]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 68232; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:27:12 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Message-Id: <p06020433bcb971d07bd8@[10.0.0.64]>
In-Reply-To: <005a01c412a8$145a89a0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A9D3071@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20040325115604.023269f8@127.0.0.1> <005a01c412a8$145a89a0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:27:31 -0400
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <entmib@ietf.org>
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
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 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" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
>>  To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; <entmib@ietf.org>
>>  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
>Entmib@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib


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