Re: [Entmib] RE: [psg.com #307] AutoReply: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong

HI,

For me, the term "notReportable" is worse than "notSupported".
The terms "notSupported", "unknown" and "unavailable" are used
in MIB modules indicate an appropriate value cannot be obtained
by the access or instrumentation code.

Mods:
section 3.1, pp 3
section 3.4
TC AdminState
TC OperState
TC UsageState
TC AlarmStatus
TC StandbyStatus
Object entStateAdmin
Object entStateOper
Object entStateUsage
Object entStateAlarm
Object entStateStandby

At 01:53 PM 2/11/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>Hi
>
>That last bit should read 
>
>""A value 
>of 'notReportable' means that this resource is unable to report [this] 
>state." 
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:51 PM
>To: 'entmib@ietf.org'
>Subject: FW: [psg.com #307] AutoReply: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong
>
>
>The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-307. The issue will be
>considered closed pending the proposed edit being done.
>
>Replace the enumeration 'notSupported' with 'notReportable' in each of the
>TCs and any references within the text.
>
>For each of the (TC, object definition) pairs, move the following sort of
>text from the object definition to the textual convention:
>
>"A value 
>of 'notApplicable' means that this resource is unable to report [this] 
>state." 
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: entity-state [mailto:rt+entity-state@rt.psg.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:50 AM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Subject: [psg.com #307] AutoReply: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong
>
><clip>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Keith McCloghrie [kzm@cisco.com]
>
>"
>>   'notSupported' is semantically wrong, because a compliant
>implementation
>>   obviously supports the MIB, but it can return 'notSupported' for
>>   every object in the MIB.  Presumably, the intended semantics is that
>>   the agent would return the right value if only it knew the right
>value;
>>   i.e., 'unknown' is the desired semantics.  Also, why is each
>definition
>>   of 'notSupported' defined in an object's DESCRIPTION, not in the
>TC's
>>   DESCRIPTION ?"
/david t. perkins 

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