Re :RE: [Entmib] A state model....
Syam Madanpalli <syam@samsung.com> Thu, 11 December 2003 04:49 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04938 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:49:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUIl3-00005k-Ql; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:49:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUIkX-00005D-KI for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:48:29 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA04927 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:48:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUIkU-0002eS-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:48:26 -0500
Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUIkU-0002dn-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:48:26 -0500
Received: from custom-daemon.mailout2.samsung.com by mailout2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) id <0HPP00901RZQHB@mailout2.samsung.com> for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:47:50 +0900 (KST)
Received: from ep_ms13_bk (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) by mailout2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPP00HB1RZQ6U@mailout2.samsung.com> for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:47:50 +0900 (KST)
Received: from ep_spt01 (ms13.samsung.com [203.254.225.109]) by ms13.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPP00M3DRZQUN@ms13.samsung.com> for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:47:50 +0900 (KST)
Content-return: prohibited
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:47:53 +0000
From: Syam Madanpalli <syam@samsung.com>
Subject: Re :RE: [Entmib] A state model....
X-Sender: Samsung Electronics?SISO(CTO)?Manager
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan) " <dromasca@avaya.com>
Cc: Syam Madanapalli <madanapalli@hotmail.com>, "David T. Perkins " <dperkins@dsperkins.com>, "entmib@ietf.org " <entmib@ietf.org>
Reply-to: syam@samsung.com
Message-id: <4201682.1071118069933.JavaMail.weblogic@ep_app04>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Msgkey: 20031211044749867@syam
X-MTR: 20031211044749867@syam
X-EPLocale: en_US.windows-1252
X-EPWebmail-Msg-Type: personal
X-EPWebmail-Reply-Demand: 0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: entmib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Dan ------- Original Message ------- Sender : Romascanu, Dan (Dan)<dromasca@avaya.com> Date : Dec 10, 2003 16:04 Title : RE: [Entmib] A state model.... Syam, > > > > > Finally, it was sort of strange that the security section specified > > a reference to SNMPv1 when the document is a model and does not > > contain SNMP object nor notification definitions. > > As I mentioned earlier the draft is not complete by itself. > This can be done > if the approach is useful. I think that the point that David is raising is why bother to include an SNMP-related text in the security section, while the draft does not contain any SNMP MIB objects definition. However, this is a minor editorial issue, relative to the modeling problems raised by David. I share his concern that this draft goes into a divergent direction relative to the existing interface state model defined by the Interfaces MIB. I am wondering whether you have looked at that model and considered adding the eventual missing pieces, instead of creating an alternate one. --> When we were implementing IPv6 protocol stack, we felt that the IF State Model is not sufficient for IPv6 Interfaces to reflect all error condition. I did not give a thought to add missing pieces in IF State Model rather than defining the new State Model. Probably it is a good idea to think in this direction. Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ 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
- Re :RE: [Entmib] A state model.... Syam Madanpalli