RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #322] AutoReply: Textual Convention Nam es (Prefix)

The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-322. The issue 
will be considered closed with no changes made to the document.

As indicated previously

>There were various bits of discussion on the list on when it is 
>appropriate to use a MIB specific prefix on a textual convention and 
>when it does not. As the intention on these textual conventions is for 
>general use it would seem that a prefix is not appropriate. The 
>proposal is to keep the names as is.

In response to Dave's comments, I see nothing within the state/status
objects that is specific to entities not that would prevent them from being
applies elsewhere. They were specifically worded for reuse - the use of the
generic term resource for example. In fact, there is a lot of examples
within industry where they can been applied to logical items. I'll leave a
discussion of whether that is a good idea to those who may choose to re-use
these textual conventions.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 2:06 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; entmib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #322] AutoReply: Textual Convention Names
(Prefix)

HI,

If the TCs are truly "generic", then they shouldn't be identified with a
specific MIB module. However, I'm not at all convinced that they are
generic. In fact, I really don't believe that thye are appropriate for both
physical and logical entities.

So, I support changing the descriptors(what is called "names"
below) for the TCs.

At 03:43 PM 2/11/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-322. The issue 
>will be considered closed with no changes made to the document.
>
>There were various bits of discussion on the list on when it is 
>appropriate to use a MIB specific prefix on a textual convention and 
>when it does not. As the intention on these textual conventions is for 
>general use it would seem that a prefix is not appropriate. The 
>proposal is to keep the names as is.
>
>Sharon
>-----Original Message-----
>From: entity-state [mailto:rt+entity-state@rt.psg.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:33 PM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Subject: [psg.com #322] AutoReply: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)
>
><clip>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>Andy Bierman [abierman@cisco.com]
>
>the TCs should be named with a prefix. E.g.,
>OperState -> EntityOperState.  This applies to
>all the TCs in the draft.
/david t. perkins 

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