Re: [Entmib] entstate-335: Consensus Check

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sat, 01 May 2004 17:09 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (iesg.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03193 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 May 2004 13:09:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJxbr-0000pJ-6X; Sat, 01 May 2004 12:45:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJwOp-0004vU-OT for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:27:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25436 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 May 2004 11:27:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJwOo-0003Ji-RF for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:27:30 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJwNC-0002mp-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:25:51 -0400
Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJwLJ-0002D7-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:23:53 -0400
Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.64]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 68228; Sat, 01 May 2004 11:23:05 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Message-Id: <p06020432bcb97116503e@[10.0.0.64]>
In-Reply-To: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340ACD5D55@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
References: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340ACD5D55@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:23:28 -0400
To: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>, entmib@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] entstate-335: Consensus Check
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
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>

IMO, we would need consensus to add a new notification to the Enitity 
State MIB at this point, and I did not see consensus to add this 
notification.

Does anyone disagree with the above consensus call?  If not, Sharon 
please do not add the new notification and mark this issue as closed.

Thanks,
Margaret

At 4:24 PM -0400 4/12/04, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>hi
>
><editor>
>There has been a proposal to add a new notification related to the stand by
>state. There hasn't really been any opposition based on people feeling it is
>a really bad idea or anything, but there has been a couple bits of
>opposition against adding it more related to benefit, current stage in MIB
>development, lack of proposal, etc.
>
>Is consensus not to add this new notification(s) at this time?
></editor>
>
>[Note there is a bit more in the 335 thread, but it's not really related]
>
>Sharon Chisholm
>Portfolio Integration
>Nortel Networks
>Ottawa, Canada
>
>_______________________________________________
>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