RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB
Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> Mon, 09 February 2004 04:13 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16358 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:13:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq2n5-0000bK-6w; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:12:59 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aq2mp-0000b9-PF for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:12:43 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16352 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:12:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq2mn-0003vb-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:12:41 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq2ls-0003sK-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:11:45 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aq2lf-0003oo-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:11:31 -0500
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2004 20:18:07 +0000
Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i194AxGv000776; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:11:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ABIERMAN-W2K.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-390.cisco.com [10.21.65.134]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AQS80620; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040208195621.02444ab8@fedex.cisco.com>
X-Sender: abierman@fedex.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:07:59 -0800
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB
Cc: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>, entmib@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20040207080722.041c73f0@ms101.mail1.com>
References: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A1792C7@zcard0ka.ca.norte l.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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>
At 02:56 PM 2/8/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >We originally considered doing the state/status extensions as >part of the Entity MIB, and those first discussion did mention >a single object. However, by November 2002 we had a much more >complex model and agreed that it would be better to do this as >a separate MIB. > >We agreed to accept the Entity State MIB as a WG document before >March 2003, and at that time it was at least as complex as it is >now. We've been working on this MIB for over a year, and I >believe that it should take WG consensus to make a major >change to it now. Do others agree? > >In Minneapolis, the complexity of this MIB was raised as an issue. >There was a general sense of the room that the MIB was too >complex, but many people who were involved in earlier discussions, >including the editor, weren't present. When the discussion was >brought to the mailing list, I did not see clear consensus that >we need to reduce the complexity of the MIB. I don't disagree with you about the WG consensus. I'm not objecting to the MIB going forward. But I wouldn't be surprised if application developers end up writing a complex function to convert an entStateEntry to a simple LED-type enum for the entity. >Sharon did try to address concerns about the complexity of this >MIB in the latest version by simplifying and streamlining the >description. > >So, where do we stand on this issue? I'd say it's closed. The WG doesn't think a simple operStatus type of object is sufficient. >Are there others who have read the current MIB and strongly >believe that it needs to be simplified? Or not? I didn't ask for the MIB to be simplified. >Margaret Andy >At 02:28 PM 2/6/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote: >>Hi >> >>I don't understand where the impression that we were only planning on adding >>a single object that gave operational status came from. My early >>presentations on this topic outlined a large number of state objects that >>could be defined and from that we whittled down to what we thought was a >>reasonable set. Some people wanted more and some people wanted less. >> >>Sharon >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] >>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:27 AM >>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >>Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; entmib@ietf.org >>Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB >> >> >>At 03:30 AM 2/6/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: >>>> Given that this is a second WG Last Call for this document, that >>>> several people reviewed it during the previous WG Last Call, and that >>>> Sharon did a great job of maintaining an issue list and documenting >>>> the resolution of each issue, I am planning to interpret silence as >>>> agreement to send this document to the IESG. >>>> >>>I do not want to step on the toes of our WG chair, but yet... I would >>>actually appreciate if the people who spoke up (a while ago) that the >>>MIB was too complex, that they do state if they are now OK with this >>>version! >>> >>>PLEASE PARTICIPATE and express your opinion. >> >>okay, okay... >> >>I do not approve of, or object to, the Entity State MIB >>going forward. >> >>My concerns are regarding the intent of the MIB -- the >>actual problem being addressed. So I looked to the >>Entmib WG charter page for guidance. This is all it >>says about the Entity State MIB: >> >> Done Publish state/status extensions as a WG I-D >> >> Mar 04 Submit Entity State MIB to the IESG for Proposed Standard >> >>Not a word about the problem being addressed. >> >>I thought we set out to add an 'operStatus' object for >>physical entities -- a simple ( green, yellow, red ) >>status indicator. Applications would still need to >>know how to use other MIBs to diagnose or correct a fault. >>IMO, there's not much value in a generic indicator beyond >>this, so it's best to keep it simple. >> >> From the draft: >> >> "Objects are defined to capture administrative, operational and usage >> states. In addition there are further state objects defined to >> provide additional information for these three basic states." >> >>The document clearly attempts to provide more functionality than a simple >>'operStatus' object. The authors have done a fine job defining and >>documenting this functionality. >> >>In order to discuss how well a MIB addresses its intended function, we have >>to agree on the intended function. >> >> >>>Bert >> >>Andy >> >> >>>> So, if you have any objection to submitting this document for >>>> publication as a Proposed Standard, please make that clear by Friday. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Margaret >>>> >>>> >>>> >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:00:59 -0500 >>>> >To: Entmib@ietf.org >>>> >From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> >>>> > >>>> >Hi All, >>>> > >>>> >This is a two week WG Last Call for submitting the Entity State MIB >>>> >to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. The latest >>>> >version of this document can be found at: >>>> > >>>> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt >>>> > >>>> >This WG Last Call will end on Friday, February 6th at 5pm EST. >>>> > >>>> >Please review the document and forward substantive comments to >>>> >the mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent directly >>>> >to the authors. >>>> > >>>> >Thanks, >>>> >Margaret >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >_______________________________________________ >>>> >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 >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list Entmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
- REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB Margaret Wasserman
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Andy Bierman
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Andy Bierman
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Sharon Chisholm
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Sharon Chisholm
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Margaret Wasserman
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Subrahmanya Hegde
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Subrahmanya Hegde
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Margaret Wasserman
- RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Andy Bierman
- Re: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State… Juergen Schoenwaelder