RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps

"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> Mon, 12 January 2004 11:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22781 for <entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:50:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag0a3-00082p-HK for entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:50:03 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CBo3Mj030913 for entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:50:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag0a3-00082S-4S; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:50:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag0ZW-000812-7n for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:49:30 -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 GAA22752 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:49:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag0ZD-0004mV-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:49:11 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag0VE-0004cp-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:45:05 -0500
Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag0RJ-0004Sl-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:41:01 -0500
Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i0CBe6c25739 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <ZL73C58B>; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:40:06 -0500
Message-ID: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD3409C66956@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
To: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:40:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 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>

Hi

I've captured the trap name/oid issue as #306 and will resolve it with any
other issues that arrive from the working group last call, which seems to be
the consensus path forward.

Margaret, I'll leave it to you to call that.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 1:06 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps


I agree with 1) and including the proposal that we should go through a Last
Call again. I do not feel that we had consensus that this is the right
balance between lack of complexity and useful functionality, and the WG
participants should have the formal opportunity to provide again their
inputs.

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: entmib-admin@ietf.org [mailto:entmib-admin@ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: 09 January, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> My vote is for 1), except if the current update resolves
> issues from the
> previous working group last call do we need a second? There 
> was substantial
> rewrite, but no objects were changed. I could go either way.
> 
> I'm hoping that the more concise text in the latest version
> appeases the
> concern that what the working group has come up with is too 
> complicated.
> 
> Sharon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:26 AM
> To: entmib@ietf.org
> Subject: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the newest version of the Entity State MIB is
> available, the WG has
> a decision to make.  In my opinion, we have two
> choices:
> 
> (1) We decide that the structure and objects defined in the
> current draft
> are acceptable, and we send the current draft to WG Last Call 
> in order to
> identify and resolve final issues.
> 
> (2) We decide that we want to change the structure or objects
> defined in
> this MIB to make it simpler or more functional.
> 
> I would appreciate it if people would respond to this message
> with their
> opinions, so that I can attempt to judge the consensus of the 
> WG on this
> issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

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