[Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum

"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 25 March 2004 16:36 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05423 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:36:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6Xpr-0000w1-32; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:36:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B6XpP-0000tR-SH for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:35 -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 LAA05385 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XpO-0005W8-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:35:34 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B6XoT-0005Tv-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:34:37 -0500
Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B6Xo2-0005Qb-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:34:11 -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 i2PGXcc06000 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:33:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GXT6KC09>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:33:38 -0500
Message-ID: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A9D3071@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
To: entmib@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:33:38 -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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
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

Ok, that means we are not tied to one end of the spectrum. Here are my two
views on where we setting in the spectrum.

Personal: I'm worried about change for the sake of changes or
over-simplification of this MIB which in this continuum could be considered
moving too far over the other way.   The first would end in mapping tables,
which while not ideal are not too bad, the latter would result in me and
others having to continue to use proprietary MIBs to get meaningful state
management. We've put a lot of effort into getting to current set of objects
to try to meet WG needs and I think we are pretty close. If we focus our
efforts on resolving the known issues without falling down the slippery
slope of re-designing everything, we can be done soon. If we don't we could
be here for another two years. I haven't yet seen consensus for deleting any
of the states, but if we get there I think I'd prefer to see them made
optional instead.

Co-Editor: As indicated, if we deviate too much we need to provide a mapping
back to the OSI model much like we have done with other state objects. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:34 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity comments


In hindsight (after having seen discussion over the last 2 days) and based
on:
<clip>
> 
> 1. Prefixing the TCs with ITU prefix. The answer to this
> depends on where we are in that spectrum.
> 
It seems that a ITU is NOT the proper prefix.
But some prefix does make sense.

Bert

_______________________________________________
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