Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 29 September 2004 17:49 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 NAA22804 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCiSV-0003Yk-H4; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:41:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCi9K-0003fC-JR for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:21:54 -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 NAA20658 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:21:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCiHP-0002yv-4d for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:30:15 -0400
Received: from h-69-3-25-17.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.25.17] helo=oemcomputer) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CCi9G-0006mt-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:21:50 -0700
Message-ID: <002001c4a649$741e9040$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: <entmib@ietf.org>
References: <p06020452bd7737afb11c@[192.168.2.2]> <20040929092455.GA2046@james>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:26:23 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
> To: <entmib@ietf.org>
> Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt
...
> a) Section says:
>
>      Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a
>      specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare
>      capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the
>      user is equivalent to an entity, so this term is substituted. This
>      state refers to the ability of the entity to service other entities
>      within its containment hierarchy.
>
>    I think this can be made shorter without loosing significance:
>
>      Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a
>      specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare
>      capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the
>      usage state refers to the ability of an entity to service other
>      entities within its containment hierarchy.
>
>    But I do not feel strongly about this change. (I just found the
>    term substitution a bit awkward.)

I think the idea was to avoid precluding its use in cases where
there were users other than entities within its containment hierarchy,
but I agree that the original wording is awkward.

> b) I suggest to replace 'status' with 'states' in the sentence below:
>
>      In addition to those alarm status defined in
>      X.731 [X.731], warning and indeterminate status are also defined to
>      provide a more complete mapping to the Alarm MIB [Alarm-MIB].
...

However, X.731 makes a distinction between "states" and "status".
My very old copy (1991) in clause 8.1.2 ("Status attributes") describes
the distinction this way:

   The status attributes are provided to qualify the Operational, Usage
   and/or Administrative state attributes.

Randy



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