RE: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 02 February 2005 16:14 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 LAA22785 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:14:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CwMsh-0003e0-13; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:57:27 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CwMqD-0002G5-DW for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:54:53 -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 KAA20214 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:54:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CwN8b-0003K3-Ik for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:13:53 -0500
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j12FsKvj013795 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:54:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <ZXPVBF9X>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:54:18 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C7A05E@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "'Andy Bierman'" <abierman@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:54:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 057ebe9b96adec30a7efb2aeda4c26a4
Cc: "Entmib-wg \(E-mail\)" <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

Andy writes:
> 
> At 07:05 AM 2/2/2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >Can the author/editor and/or the WG react please.
> >I need (if possible) an answer by tomorrow (Thursday) 11am US
> >eastern at the latest (that is, if we want to try and get this 
> >approved this week).
> 
> what are the edits? CLEI URI to CLEI URN. reference
> RFC 2396 -> RFC 3986.  Any other nits?  Can't you just carry 
> forward an edit list without an update?
> 

I can do that if the WG agrees that that is indeed what we want to do.
I cannot just make such changes without checking back with at least
the authors/editors or the WG.

> It's not like these updates require anybody to comment.
> Who's going to object to fixing a nit?
> 
I can do those fixes with an RFC-Editor note if we agree that
is what we want to do.

Bert
> 
> >Bert
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: entmib-bounces@ietf.org 
> >> [mailto:entmib-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf
> >> Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 01:05
> >> To: Entmib-wg (E-mail)
> >> Subject: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Feedback from IESG
> >> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> >> Ted Hardie
> >> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 23:28
> >> To: iesg@ietf.org
> >> Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Minor, but should be fixed.  The document currently says:
> >> 
> >> entPhysicalUris OBJECT-TYPE
> >>      SYNTAX      OCTET STRING
> >>      MAX-ACCESS  read-write
> >>      STATUS      current
> >>      DESCRIPTION
> >>              "This object contains additional identification 
> >> information
> >>              about the physical entity. The object 
> contains URIs and
> >>              therefore the syntax of this object must 
> conform to RFC
> >>              2396, section 2.
> >> 
> >>              Multiple URIs may be present and are 
> separated by white
> >>              space characters. Leading and trailing white space
> >>              characters are ignored.
> >> 
> >>              If no additional identification information 
> is known or
> >>              supported about the physical entity the object is not
> >>              instantiated.  A zero length octet string may also be
> >>              returned in this case."
> >>      REFERENCE
> >>              "RFC 2396, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
> >>              Syntax, section 2, August 1998."
> >> 
> >> This should be updated to the new URI RFC and a pointer to the
> >> appropriate syntax restrictions.  This text also does not limit
> >> the types of URIs which may be present.  If they are limited,
> >> an enumerated list should be included.
> >> 
> >> The document also uses "CLEI URI" to refer to a URN in the CLEI
> >> namespace.  That's technically correct, but it would be easier
> >> to understand if CLEI URN was used.  Here's an example:
> >> 
> >>      The entPhysicalUris object may be used to encode for 
> >> example a URI
> >>      containing a Common Language Equipment Identifier 
> (CLEI) URI for
> >>      the managed physical entity. The URN name space for CLEIs is
> >>      defined in [RFC CLEIURN], and the CLEI format is defined in
> >>      [T1.213][T1.213a]. 
> >> 
> >> Simply swapping out (CLEI) URI for (CLEI) URN would be fine.
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Entmib mailing list
> >> Entmib@ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
> >> 
> 

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