RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

["Faye Ly" <[e-mail]>]

Kaj,
 
Regarding 2, (Please see cut and paste text), I agree with the string
approach as it is a well defined standard in ASCII displayble format.
It will simplify the implementation a lot as vendor like us typically
just save it as a string in the chassis/board table and never meddle
with it.
 
Also do you think it is worth a while to also include the CLLI code
support in this MIB?  It is used when SNMP and TL1 both exist either in
the device or proxied by one another.  Thanks.
 
-faye
 
2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement.
the suggested construct was based on neat suggestions by Dave
and was meant to accommodate several concerns and also
allow flexibility. but several comments pointed out that
this may be too cumbersome to implement. i attach the 
original proposal which was an object dedicated to CLEI.
note that my original question was posed in the context of
extending the Entity MIB directly instead of creating a separate
document. 
any strong feelings against going back to the original? Dave?


	-----Original Message-----
	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Kaj Tesink
	Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:02 PM
	To: [e-mail]
	Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
	
	
	At 03:34 PM 4/9/2004 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:
	

		Hi,
		 
		Yes, we have a need for this MIB.  Any chance of getting
this done?



	i think the following issues have been raised:
	1. document title is too vague
	2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement
	3. acceptance as work item
	
	
	1. document title is too vague:
	current proposed title is:
	Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed Objects
	
	the current contents of the MIB module is only two objects
	- manufacturing date
	- additional info (an opaque object with one currently
identified
	  application)
	
	i proposed this title to be
	a) in line with similar documentation techniques in the past
	b) to be compatible with possible extensions in the future
	
	given the two current objects, and that one of them is opaque,
	it is hard to be very specific. Dan suggested something like:
	'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing date and physical
module identification'
	
	or perhaps:
	
	Extensions to entPhysicalTable of the Entity MIB
	(more precise but still not very illuminating)
	
	I suggest we go with Dan's proposal.
	
	
	2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement.
	the suggested construct was based on neat suggestions by Dave
	and was meant to accommodate several concerns and also
	allow flexibility. but several comments pointed out that
	this may be too cumbersome to implement. i attach the 
	original proposal which was an object dedicated to CLEI.
	note that my original question was posed in the context of
	extending the Entity MIB directly instead of creating a separate
	document. 
	any strong feelings against going back to the original? Dave?
	
	
	3. acceptance as work item
	since the original proposal i've seen several supporting
comments 
	but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge
	
	kaj
	
	
	
	
	
	---snip from initial
posting-------------------------------------------------
	
	
	=============================================================
	new objects:
	
	entPhysicalCLIECode   OBJECT-TYPE
	     SYNTAX      SnmpAdminString (SIZE (0..10))
	     MAX-ACCESS  read-write
	     STATUS      current
	     DESCRIPTION
	             "The CLIE Code for the physical entity. If a CLIE
Code
	             is unknown or non-existent, the entPhysicalCLIECode
will
	             be set to a zero-length string instead."
	     ::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }
	     REFERENCE "TCIF-02-004, Guideline for data elements
	             included in the Management Information Base,
	             Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF),
09/11/2002.
	             ANSI T1.213-2001, Coded identification of equipment
entities
	             of the North American telecommunications system for
	             information exchange, ANSI.
	             ANSI T1.213a-2001, Supplement to T1.213-2001,
	             Coded identification of equipment entities of the
North
	             American telecommunications system for information
exchange,
	             to correct the representation of the Basic Code in
	             Figure B.1, ANSI."
	
	entPhysicalMfgDate   OBJECT-TYPE
	     SYNTAX      DateAndTime
	     MAX-ACCESS  read-only
	     STATUS      current
	     DESCRIPTION
	             "The manufacturing date for the physical entity."
	     ::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }
	
	
	


		-faye 

			
			-----Original Message----- 
			From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Kaj Tesink 
			Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:38 AM 
			To: Sharon Chisholm; [e-mail] 
			Subject: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for
tcif
			
			
			hi Sharon,
			
			
			At 12:56 PM 4/1/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm
wrote:
			
			

				hi
				
				
				Where are we in this discussion? Have we
decided whether the working group 
				wants to take this on?



			i think that question is still pending; 
			we asked for input and expressions of interest
well before the 
			last ietf meeting but there has not been much
traffic on this 
			since that request. so let me repeat the request
for input on this spec:
			
			
	
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-00.txt
			
			
			
			
			
			

				This is a requirement I've heard bounced
around a few times so I think this 
				is worth trying to address, but like Dan
I have a few concerns with some 
				aspects of the proposed solution. As he
has mentioned, the title is not 
				sufficiently descriptive. In addition, I
think the data types might be too 
				opaque to be useful. 



			as per my comments based on Dan's note, there
were 
			some good reasons for the high level title, but 
			i'd be open to other suggestions.
			
			
			as for the opaque object, the history is that 
			the initial proposal based on an octet string 
			syntax invoked a discussion about flexibility 
			and some other aspects, and resulted in a
proposal 
			by Dave for the current opaque construct,
although 
			some other comments expressed reservations (i
believe 
			by Juergen and Dan). 
			i'm willing to go with whatever the rough
consensus 
			dictates. 
			
			
			kaj
			
			
			
			
			
			

				Sharon 
				-----Original Message----- 
				From: Kaj Tesink
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
				Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:25
AM 
				To: [e-mail] 
				Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib
support for tcif
				
				
				
				
				Hi Dan,
				
				
				At 10:03 PM 2/10/2004 +0200, Romascanu,
Dan (Dan) wrote: 
				>Kaj, 
				> 
				>I was among the ones who supported
doing this work. I did not change my 
				>mind. 
				> 
				>Two comments: 
				>1. I would like the title of the
document to be more explicit about 
				>what 
				>is really provided by this MIB.
'Supplemental' is really too generic a 
				>title - what about something like
'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing 
				>and physical modules identification'?
				
				
				
				
				I see what you're trying to do. While
this would more accurately reflect the 
				content, there is the issue of future
compatibility. The problem with 
				adding 
				new objects to MIBs over time is that 
				a) either you add to the original spec;
but this means there's a problem 
				    with advancing the spec over time 
				b) or you define supplemental specs; the
problem here is that you dont want 
				    all sorts of miblets around; you
want to minimize the number So, similar 
				as what we did for ATM, and attempted
for DS1s, the tactic was to use this 
				generic title, so that additional
functions could still be added for a 
				while. I agree its not perfect. I also
thought that in previous 
				discussions 
				there were some thoughts about some
additional functions(?).
				
				
				>2. Some of the concerns expressed in
the meeting (not by me) were 
				>related 
				>to the availability and the proprietary
nature of the CLEI codes. Can you 
				>comment on these? Are the documents
mentioned in the REFERENCE clause of 
				>the cleiCode object freely available?
				
				
				You're right, some of that did come up
before. 
				My understanding is the following: 
				- the references point to documents by
different standards groups, 
				   and i think are available for a small
fee at www.atis.org <http://www.atis.org/>  
				- CLEI codes are defined in those
standards; 
				   Telcordia is the registrar to obtain
an actual code 
				In previous discussion it was pointed
out that 
				while CLEIs are in wide use, there is no
obligation to 
				use them; I've tried to reflect that in
the draft 
				in two ways: (a) use an opaque object
instead of a dedicated object as 
				proposed by Dave, and (b) language for
the case that the whole thing (no 
				CLEI nor any other application of the
object) is not supported.
				
				
				Kaj
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				>Thanks and Regards, 
				> 
				>Dan 
				> 
				> 
				> 
				> > -----Original Message----- 
				> > From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]On <mailto:[e-mail]%5DOn>
Behalf 
				> > Of Kaj Tesink 
				> > Sent: 10 February, 2004 6:48 PM 
				> > To: [e-mail] 
				> > Subject: Fwd: [Entmib] Re: Entity
mib support for tcif 
				> > 
				> > 
				> > all, 
				> > 
				> > the draft i sent to the list last
week is now available at 
				> >
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplm 
				> > ib-00.txt 
				> > 
				> > pl note that the file name was
changed (my error). 
				> > in order to move this forward the WG
would need 
				> > to accept this as a formal work
item. 
				> > 
				> > so we'd appreciate comments on 
				> > a) whether there is
support/objection to do this work 
				> > b) any technical comments 
				> > while the minneapolis meeting
already indicated some tentative 
				> > support, restating this or any
new/additional views would be helpful 
				> > 
				> > kaj 
				> > 
				> > 
				> > 
				> > 
				> > >X-Sender: kaj@128.96.81.11 
				> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora
Version 4.3.2 
				> > >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:06:54
-0500 
				> > >To: [e-mail] 
				> > >From: Kaj Tesink
<[e-mail]> 
				> > > 
				> > > 
				> > >all, 
				> > > 
				> > >attached is the supplemental entity
miblet 
				> > >discussed a while ago, supporting 
				> > >- manufacturing date 
				> > >- additional entity info 
				> > >the latter uses the method proposed
by dave 
				> > >to convey information such as
CLEIs. 
				> > >i do recall that there were some
different 
				> > >views on whether to use an opaque
encoding 
				> > >method versus using a dedicated
object, but 
				> > >please read it over and provide any
comments. 
				> > > 
				> > >kaj 
				> >
				
				
				
				
	
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
				
				
				Kaj Tesink 
				Telcordia Technologies. Inc. 
				331 Newman Springs Road 
				Red Bank, NJ 07701 
				Email: [e-mail] 
				Tel: [phone] 
				Fax: [phone]
				
				
	
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
				
				
				
				
	
_______________________________________________ 
				Entmib mailing list 
				[e-mail] 
	
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
				
				
	
_______________________________________________ 
				Entmib mailing list 
				[e-mail] 
	
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib



	
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
			
			
			Kaj Tesink 
			Telcordia Technologies. Inc. 
			331 Newman Springs Road 
			Red Bank, NJ 07701 
			Email: [e-mail] 
			Tel: [phone] 
			Fax: [phone]
			
			
	
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 
			_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list [e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib 



	_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

	Kaj Tesink
	Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
	331 Newman Springs Road
	Red Bank, NJ 07701
	Email: [e-mail]
	Tel: [phone]
	Fax: [phone]

	_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
	_______________________________________________ Entmib mailing
list [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib