Re: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues

Juergen Schoenwaelder <> Mon, 22 March 2004 21:34 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25733 for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:34:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5X3a-0003SK-5z; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:34:02 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B5X2S-0003Qp-M3 for; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:32:56 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25669 for <>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5X2Q-0001LG-00 for; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:32:50 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B5X1f-0001F8-00 for; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:32:04 -0500
Received: from ([] by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B5X1A-00018a-00 for; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:31:33 -0500
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B90C58515; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:31:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:31:31 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
To: Margaret Wasserman <>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues
Message-ID: <>
Mail-Followup-To: Margaret Wasserman <>,
References: <p0602043ebc849527e216@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p0602043ebc849527e216@[]>
User-Agent: Mutt/
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 08:12:52AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Sharon has proposed changes to all of the issues that have been 
> raised regarding the Entity State MIB.  The proposed resolutions can 
> be found at: (userid: ietf, password: ietf). 
> Please review Sharon's proposed changes and send mail to the list by 
> this Friday (26-Mar-2004) if you have any objections to the 
> resolutions that Sharon has proposed.  If there are any contentious 
> issues, let's discuss them so that we can determine WG consensus 
> regarding their resolution.

I went through all the issues and here is what I think where we are
with respect to the various issues. Note that the server does seem
to have some problems at the moment.

#306: entStateTrap rename/oid to entStateNotifs


#307: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong

	I think "unknown" as suggested by Keith is what we typically
	use and prefer this over "unavailable" or any other terms.

#308: Shutting Down Admin State

	I tend to agree with Keith' comment and I do not think that
	the response addresses Keith issue with the name/state itself.

#309: Operational State Names and Concepts

	I am not sure I understand the issue so I keep silent.

#310: Alarm State Issues


#311: DateAndTimeOrZero ?

	The new text refers to the initialization of "the local
	system" - whatever that may be. In a subagent environment, the
	actual instrumentation might not have easy access to what an
	operator would consider "the local system". So I think it
	would be better to adopt the approach where a the special
	value '0000000000000000'H is returned. Sure, this value falls
	not strictly under the DateAndTime TC set of values, but we
	have several MIBs using this special value on the standards
	track so this should work here as well.

#312: Locked Admin State

	I am not sure I understand the issue so I keep silent.

#322: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

	I think the TC names should be prefixed.


	The figures in the discussion of this issue are wrong as
	xxxCompliances(1) and xxxGroups(2) are typically registered
	below xxxConformance(2).

#326: Too many state objects

	Andy wants a "green light" MIB which this is not supposed
	to be. There is no way to resolve this issue.

#327: More Editorial Issues


#328: Containment Hierach and entPhysicalContainedin

	I think this issue is not really solved. It must be clear in
	all cases where a description clause talks about containment
	what this really means.

#329: Usage State Scope

	OK, although I would prefer to have the semantics spelled out
        in the relevant description clauses as well.

#330: Notification Varbinds


#332: More Standby State/Status Issues

	I am not sure I understand the issue so I keep silent.

#333: Relationship with Alarm MIB


#334: Table, Index Descriptions

	I am having problems with the suggested new text. In
	particular the following sentence:

	Entries appear in this table for values of entPhysicalClass
        [RFC2737] that in this implementation are able to report any
        of the state or status stored in this table.

	I think that the class is not necessarily the property which
	defines whether a component will be able to report useful
	information in a subagent environment. I think this sentence
	hurts more than it helps. BTW, the most obvious reason for
	sparse augmentations is that new hardware and software will in
	practice be mixed with old hardware and software in subagent
	environments. (Not sure we need to document this. I think it
	is sufficient to say it is a sparse augmentation.)

#335: Notification Comments

	To me, entStateStandby related notifications might make sense
	and this should not be ruled out by being late. However, there
	needs to be a concrete proposal to look at. Without a concrete
	proposal, no change seems OK.


Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Entmib mailing list