RE: [Entmib] CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation

Sounds reasonable to me.
dbh 

-----Original Message-----
From: entmib-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:entmib-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:21 AM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Entmib] CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping
deprecation

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:41:02PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> During the Entity MIB meeting at IETF 60 in San Diego, there was 
> consensus in the room  for the following course of action:
> 
> (1) Pull the Entity State MIB document out of IESG processing 
> (currently submitted for publication as a Draft Standard)
> 
> (2) Update the document to undo the deprecation of the
entAliasMapping 
> identifier, and
> 
> (3) Re-submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for publication as a
Proposed 
> Standard.
> 
> We now need to confirm this consensus on the mailing list.  Are
there 
> any objections to taking this course of action?  Other comments?

Sounds like a good plan to me. But if we recycle at Proposed, why do
we then not simply put the entSupplPhysicalManufacturingDate and the
entSupplPhysicalManufacturerInfo objects into the entPhysicalEntry
where they actually belong? A new compliance statement would deal with
these additions so existing implementations that comply to
entity2Compliance would not be affected.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany

_______________________________________________
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