Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:27 AM
> Subject: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)
...
> <co-editor>
> I'm not sure if consensus is fully formed yet, but I wanted to test a view
> that it seems to be leaning  in the direction of creating a separate MIB
> within this ID to house to textual conventions who's prefix we have not yet
> determined? Is that were people are or is more discussion required?
> </co-editor>

This seems reasonable to me.
I agree with Dave Perkins' message in this thread that attribute
re-use in the SNMP world is much more difficult than in GDMO-land.
However, it is still possible, and I think the TCs that've been
crafted here do have good potential for giving us some useful re-use
within the constraints of the SNMP SMI.

> <Sharon>
> I think the term 'Entity' is too limiting if we agree we are going for a
> more generic set of TCs. It occurs to be that we use the term 'resource' in
> the Alarm MIB when we introduced the concept of a 'ResourceId' as well as
> within the description clauses of the TCs in this MIB. Would a prefix of
> 'ResourceState' work?
> </Sharon>

I'd strongly prefer "EntityState" as a prefix.  The word "entity"
is just the college and sci-fi equivalent of "thingie", so I don't see how it
would be limiting.

Randy



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