Re: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de> Tue, 20 July 2004 10:18 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05730 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bmrff-0006Li-Ji; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:16:27 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BmrWK-000066-QH for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:06:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05044 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from g5743.g.pppool.de ([80.185.87.67] helo=james.eecs.iu-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BmrWO-0005RX-Hf for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:06:56 -0400
Received: by james.eecs.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A39D081D4; Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:06:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:06:40 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] To meet or not to meet?
Message-ID: <20040720100640.GA1898@iu-bremen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>, entmib@ietf.org
References: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F056B3232@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F056B3232@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: entmib@ietf.org, Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: entmib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:42:33PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
 
> 1. Should the language about using the CLEI codes be more decisive? 
> SHOULD instead of MAY? For example: 'If CLEI codes are supported in 
> the operational environment where this agent is implemented, this 
> object SHOULD include a URI containing a Common Language Equipment 
> Identifier (CLEI) URI [XXX] for the managed physical entity.'

I guess we should leave that to the decision of the implementator
(or whoever configures this object). If we add more decisive text,
we might again have a debate whether the IETF features proprietary
identification mechanisms.

> 2.' If no additional identification information is known or supported 
> about the physical entity the object is not instantiated' - This object 
> has a MAX-ACCESS read-write. How would the creation or deletion of the 
> first URI in the list work? Would not it be simpler to use a zero-length 
> string for the case when no identification information is known?

I just kept this sentence from the original text. I don't mind allowing a
zero-length string instead.

> 3. 'Note that [XXX] would refer to a most likely informational RFC which 
> registers a URN namespace for CLEI codes.' - Does [XXX] really need to 
> be an Informational RFC? I am afraid that this would hang this MIB until 
> that RFC goes through our wonderful IETF process. Maybe the Telcordia 
> folks already have a document to be referenced as an Informative 
> Reference, or can create one on a shorter path.  

This MIB has already been hanging around for quite some time. While
it is popular to point to the slow IETF process, I believe that in 
many cases the speed in which a reasonable document is written does
contribute quite a bit to the overall speed. I do have a strong 
preference to have a URN namespace formally registered and all this
documented by an RFC. I do not think it is a complicated thing to
do - especially if someone from Telcoridia who knows how these CLEI
codes work writes this up. There are enough template RFCs out there.
There is no reason why such a document should not be ready to go to
the RFC editor as an individual submission directly after the next
WG meeting.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

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