RE: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues

"Sharon Chisholm" <> Tue, 23 March 2004 14:30 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28987 for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:30:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5mun-0002ZT-1t; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:30:01 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5muc-0002YY-DU for; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:29:50 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28920 for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:29:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5mua-0001aQ-00 for; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:29:48 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B5mtS-0001QS-00 for; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:28:39 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5msv-0001GB-00 for; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:28:05 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i2NERV522569 for <>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:27:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GXT62538>; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:27:31 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Sharon Chisholm <>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:27:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


I've updated the issues in The tool often has a lot of
issues with timeouts and things. I've learned a few tricks to work around

Comments inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [] 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:32 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues

#307: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong

	I think "unknown" as suggested by Keith is what we typically
	use and prefer this over "unavailable" or any other terms.

Sharon> I don't have a strong opinion on this. Others did though.

#308: Shutting Down Admin State

	I tend to agree with Keith' comment and I do not think that
	the response addresses Keith issue with the name/state itself.

Sharon> Well, shutting down has to be an administrative state since you have
a choice of graceful shutdown and just shutting it down. As far as the name
goes, in order to fully describe state, it would have to be
'noNewUsageThenShuttingDown'. It's sort of a fun name, but some may think it
too long.


#311: DateAndTimeOrZero ?

	The new text refers to the initialization of "the local
	system" - whatever that may be. In a subagent environment, the
	actual instrumentation might not have easy access to what an
	operator would consider "the local system". So I think it
	would be better to adopt the approach where a the special
	value '0000000000000000'H is returned. Sure, this value falls
	not strictly under the DateAndTime TC set of values, but we
	have several MIBs using this special value on the standards
	track so this should work here as well.

Sharon> I like this simpler approach. I had been half way down the path of
defining new TCs to behave like this when I looked up how we did it in the
Alarm MIB. Would answering the question of what the 'local system' is or
using a better term help?


#322: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

	I think the TC names should be prefixed.

Sharon> Ok. I think we need to step back a level on this one. We seemed to
have had agreement on the list that if the TCs were intended to be not
specific to Entities, then they should not have the prefix but if they were
they should. So, I suspect we are disagreeing on whether these TCs are
specific to Entities. I certainly never intended them to be and went out of
my way to ensure they weren't. Is there something in their definition that
leads you to believe they are limited in their application to Entities?


	The figures in the discussion of this issue are wrong as
	xxxCompliances(1) and xxxGroups(2) are typically registered
	below xxxConformance(2).

Sharon> This is from the MIB Review Guidelines. 


#328: Containment Hierach and entPhysicalContainedin

	I think this issue is not really solved. It must be clear in
	all cases where a description clause talks about containment
	what this really means.

Sharon> Embedded? Perhaps.


#334: Table, Index Descriptions

	I am having problems with the suggested new text. In
	particular the following sentence:

	Entries appear in this table for values of entPhysicalClass
        [RFC2737] that in this implementation are able to report any
        of the state or status stored in this table.

	I think that the class is not necessarily the property which
	defines whether a component will be able to report useful
	information in a subagent environment. I think this sentence
	hurts more than it helps. BTW, the most obvious reason for
	sparse augmentations is that new hardware and software will in
	practice be mixed with old hardware and software in subagent
	environments. (Not sure we need to document this. I think it
	is sufficient to say it is a sparse augmentation.)

Sharon>I have had a lot of trouble with this text since I actually don't
think this table should be sparse augment. I was just going with a working
group consensus we agreed to a long time ago. Your reasons makes more sense.
I'll try to rework the text.

#335: Notification Comments

	To me, entStateStandby related notifications might make sense
	and this should not be ruled out by being late. However, there
	needs to be a concrete proposal to look at. Without a concrete
	proposal, no change seems OK.

Sharon> Ok, so in the absence of that ...


Entmib mailing list