RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Status - issue 307

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Fri, 23 July 2004 09:53 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05728 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnwh4-00021F-Pb; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:50:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bnwd3-0000WB-5D for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:46:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05383 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:46:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bnwdj-0002Al-54 for entmib@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 05:46:59 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6N9jZ5S016684 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 04:45:36 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <NTS1B7ZB>; Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:45:35 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15504D06CBD@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Status - issue 307
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:45:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: entmib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-bounces@ietf.org

> >  307 'notSupported' is semantically wrong
> > - This has been changed to 'unavailable'. Some people had wanted
> > 'unknown'. Should
> > I have changed this to unknown?
> 
> Part of the difficulty in naming this one is that it seems to be doing
> triple-duty for notApplicable as well as notSupported and notAvailable.
> It's unclear whether the distinction would actually be useful, so as long
> as everyone agrees that "unavailable" includes these cases, 
> I'd be happy.
> 
And Juergen writes:

> So "unknown" would IMHO be the better choice as it is clearly vague.

I personally feel that unknown might better represent the 3 possible
situations. ANd if those are indeed all 3 possible, then I'd
suggest to state that in the DESCRIPTION clause as well.

Bert

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