Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up
"David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com> Thu, 09 December 2004 02:43 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 VAA11954 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:43:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcE5v-0007FX-2B; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:31:51 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CcE2F-0006Bp-G6 for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:28:03 -0500
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 VAA10887 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:28:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpout1.bayarea.net ([209.128.95.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CcE97-0000qK-Mw for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:35:11 -0500
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by smtpout1.bayarea.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iB92RRkc032389; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:27:27 -0800
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB92RQHU018470; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:27:26 -0800
Received: from localhost (dperkins@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id iB92RPgc018464; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:27:26 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: dperkins owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:27:25 -0800
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
X-Sender: dperkins@shell4.bayarea.net
To: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20041208160349.025f4d60@fedex.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10412081743530.576-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, entmib@ietf.org
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, Ok, you guys caught me not staying current on all messages. Now that I've read the I-D and read the messages from approx Nov 30 time frame, here are my comments: 1) The text of the document and the text in the description clause to not seem to be in alignment with reguards to an empty value. Some people like to not create an instance and others like the use of a zero length string. I prefer a zero length string. 2) The data type is OCTET STRING. I think it should be the proper TC for a "printable US ASCII" (that is, printable 7-bit ASCII). URIs cannot contain spaces, and must contain only a subset of characters from printable 7-bit ASCII. 3) In RFC 3413, textual convention SNMP-TARGET-MIB::SnmpTagList provides a superset of what is needed for the syntax. It provides support for UTF8 encodings, which are not needed for URIs. It describes leading, trailing, and multiple deliminators (you can't have them!). 4) This issue has been discussed many times. As was pointed out by Kaj in an earlier message, the approach choosen was the best solution and was acceptable to all on the WG mailing list. I don't believe that it is fair to undo what was hammered out over a long period of time where: a) it was demonstrated that use of an "alternative identification" scheme was needed and provided value at little cost. b) the scheme was neutral c) the scheme provided support for multiple competing alternative identifications (limited only by the size of the object) d) the cost to support a "non implementation" was next to nothing 5) Yes, all MIB purests hate this and similar objects, since they are really for "lazy management app writers". However, this object does provide benefit when it is difficult to determine values of OIDs that are used for the value of object entPhysicalVendorType. Tracking down OID values used for identification can be a time consuming and frustrating job. 6) I don't remember why it is "read-write" and not read-only, since entPhysicalVendorType is read-only. But maybe someone can provide the reason. (I think if you want to change it, then there should be a path not via SNMP. Because if you can write it via SNMP, a management app must be translating the value of entPhysicalVendorType.) So, I suggest that 1) the DESCRIPTION text be cleaned up and aligned with the text in the document to say that the object is a) an alternative way to identify the component than the value of entPhysicalVendorType b) potentially a list of alternative identifications 2) the value of the SYNTAX be changed to DisplayString (and the DESCRPTION clause restrict the values further). 3) the descriptor be changed to something like "entPhysicalAltIDlist" to better convey it's semantics. 4) Possibly change it to read-only. (But ignore this if there is a good reason not to.) Note, I thought that maybe object entPhysicalAssetID could do double duty and hold the URI value, but it is too small. So, again, I feel that the WG made the best choices to create a new neutral object. On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Andy Bierman wrote: > At 01:27 PM 12/8/2004, David T. Perkins wrote: > >HI, > > > >I somehow missed the motivating reasons to go from a > >an object that can provide a alternative identification > >to an object that supports only CLEI codes. > > IMO, standard objects add value by providing common, well-defined > semantics. A list of undefined, unconstrained "alternate identifiers" > doesn't meet this criteria. If the DESCRIPTION clause somehow > constrained (and guided) implementations with a finite set of > alternatives, that would be fine. Rationale for each alternative > would need to be documented as well. I strongly oppose doing > all this "alternative identifier" work as part of the 2737 update, > because it isn't well-defined yet. > > Andy I believe that Andy's objection can be resolved by a registry at IANA for URIs for this object. Regards, /david t. perkins _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list Entmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
- [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Andy Bierman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up David T. Perkins
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Andy Bierman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up David T. Perkins
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Andy Bierman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Kaj Tesink
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Andy Bierman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Kaj Tesink
- RE: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Kaj Tesink
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Andy Bierman
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Kaj Tesink
- Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up Kaj Tesink