Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt

Hi -

> From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> To: <entmib@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt
...
> >    I think this can be made shorter without loosing significance:
> >
> >      Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a
> >      specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare
> >      capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the
> >      usage state refers to the ability of an entity to service other
> >      entities within its containment hierarchy.
> >
> >    But I do not feel strongly about this change. (I just found the
> >    term substitution a bit awkward.)
>
> I think the idea was to avoid precluding its use in cases where
> there were users other than entities within its containment hierarchy,
> but I agree that the original wording is awkward.
...

I just realized that my comment is very unclear.  Let me try to re-state:
the entStateUsage OBJECT-TYPE's DESCRIPTION is trying to narrow the
semantics that come with the EntityUsageState TC.  I *think* the intent
here was to limit the notion of "user" for this object to entities within
the containment hierarchy.  (I don't think that that's the right thing to
do, but this is not the right time for that discussion, IMO.)  Consequently,
saying "In the context of this MIB, the usage state" is somewhat ambiguous,
and it would be better to clarify that "the usage state" in this case is
the entStateUsage object, rather than the EntityUSageState TC.  My
suggestion would be add the word "object-type" before "refers" in
Juergen's proposed text.

Randy

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