RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

"Sharon Chisholm" <> Thu, 25 March 2004 17:24 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09070 for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:24:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Yac-0006yi-EA; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:24:22 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6YaB-0006vd-Al for; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:23:55 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08935 for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:23:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Ya9-00022X-00 for; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:23:53 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6YZF-0001un-00 for; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:22:58 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6YYO-0001gq-00 for; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:22:04 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i2PHLXc18247 for <>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:21:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GXT6K1C0>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:21:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Sharon Chisholm <>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:21:32 -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 don't remember anyone objecting to Bert's Post:

"In general, when a TC is clearly generic, then using the most 
intuitive and generic name makes sense. In most cases, such a TC would 
be better specified in a generic/independent document 
(or at least a separate MIB module).

As soon as a TC is specific to some technology or to some WG, then 
prefixing it with the wg or technology-specific acronym is the way to 

Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus? This is
what I referred to as the consensus, not the following bit that was
preference with "I think". If it wasn't clear enough that I was expressing
my opinion at that point and not my assessment of working group consensus,
then I can certainly prefix all personal opinions with "personal" like I did
in a recent email and all the others with 'editor'.


-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:50 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:39:39AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> We had previously agreed that if these state objects were not specific 
> to physical entities then they should not have this prefix. We seem to 
> be back to not agreeing that they are specific to physical entities.
> I don't think they are and I don't think they should be. What 
> specifically about them do people view as being specific to physical 
> entities?

I am not so sure how much agreement there has been on this issue. I
understand that you have a strong opinion here, I am less sure that 
this opinion has become WG consensus. 

As I said before: If these TCs are generic, they must go into a separate 
module since I do not want depend on an extension of the entity MIB and
hence also on the entity MIB just because I want to use these generic 
TCs in another MIB. If the TCs are not generic (or we do not know yet), 
lets be conversative and give the names the Ent... prefix.


Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Entmib mailing list