RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

"Faye Ly" <> Fri, 09 April 2004 22:42 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29151 for <>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BC4hF-0004ZU-6f; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:42:01 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BC4gN-0004Xt-OU for; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:41:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29100 for <>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BC4gI-0002kw-00 for; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:41:02 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BC4d6-0002Xd-00 for; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:37:46 -0400
Received: from [] ( by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BC4Zn-0002BA-00 for; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 18:34:19 -0400
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C41E82.C1B807D8"
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:34:01 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
thread-index: AcQY+5GSuG802bExTXKtg3y9TFCk8QFhxsrw
From: "Faye Ly" <>
To: "Kaj Tesink" <>, "Sharon Chisholm" <>, <>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_MESSAGE,NO_OBLIGATION 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: <>, <>

Yes, we have a need for this MIB.  Any chance of getting this done?

	-----Original Message-----
	From: [] On
Behalf Of Kaj Tesink
	Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:38 AM
	To: Sharon Chisholm;
	Subject: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
	hi Sharon,
	At 12:56 PM 4/1/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

		Where are we in this discussion? Have we decided whether
the working group
		wants to take this on?

	i think that question is still pending;
	we asked for input and expressions of interest well before the
	last ietf meeting but there has not been much traffic on this
	since that request. so let me repeat the request for input on
this spec:

		This is a requirement I've heard bounced around a few
times so I think this
		is worth trying to address, but like Dan I have a few
concerns with some
		aspects of the proposed solution. As he has mentioned,
the title is not
		sufficiently descriptive. In addition, I think the data
types might be too
		opaque to be useful. 

	as per my comments based on Dan's note, there were
	some good reasons for the high level title, but
	i'd be open to other suggestions.
	as for the opaque object, the history is that
	the initial proposal based on an octet string
	syntax invoked a discussion about flexibility
	and some other aspects, and resulted in a proposal
	by Dave for the current opaque construct, although
	some other comments expressed reservations (i believe
	by Juergen and Dan). 
	i'm willing to go with whatever the rough consensus

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Kaj Tesink [] 
		Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:25 AM
		Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
		Hi Dan,
		At 10:03 PM 2/10/2004 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
		>I was among the ones who supported doing this work. I
did not change my
		>Two comments:
		>1. I would like the title of the document to be more
explicit about
		>is really provided by this MIB. 'Supplemental' is
really too generic a 
		>title - what about something like 'Entity MIB
Extensions for manufacturing 
		>and physical modules identification'?
		I see what you're trying to do. While this would more
accurately reflect the
		content, there is the issue of future compatibility. The
problem with 
		new objects to MIBs over time is that
		a) either you add to the original spec; but this means
there's a problem
		    with advancing the spec over time
		b) or you define supplemental specs; the problem here is
that you dont want
		    all sorts of miblets around; you want to minimize
the number So, similar
		as what we did for ATM, and attempted for DS1s, the
tactic was to use this
		generic title, so that additional functions could still
be added for a
		while. I agree its not perfect. I also thought that in
		there were some thoughts about some additional
		>2. Some of the concerns expressed in the meeting (not
by me) were 
		>to the availability and the proprietary nature of the
CLEI codes. Can you 
		>comment on these? Are the documents mentioned in the
REFERENCE clause of 
		>the cleiCode object freely available?
		You're right, some of that did come up before.
		My understanding is the following:
		- the references point to documents by different
standards groups,
		   and i think are available for a small fee at <> 
		- CLEI codes are defined in those standards;
		   Telcordia is the registrar to obtain an actual code
		In previous discussion it was pointed out that
		while CLEIs are in wide use, there is no obligation to
		use them; I've tried to reflect that in the draft
		in two ways: (a) use an opaque object instead of a
dedicated object as
		proposed by Dave, and (b) language for the case that the
whole thing (no
		CLEI nor any other application of the object) is not
		>Thanks and Regards,
		> > -----Original Message-----
		> > From:
[]On <>
		> > Of Kaj Tesink
		> > Sent: 10 February, 2004 6:48 PM
		> > To:
		> > Subject: Fwd: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for
		> >
		> >
		> > all,
		> >
		> > the draft i sent to the list last week is now
available at 
		> >
		> > ib-00.txt
		> >
		> > pl note that the file name was changed (my error).
		> > in order to move this forward the WG would need
		> > to accept this as a formal work item.
		> >
		> > so we'd appreciate comments on
		> > a) whether there is support/objection to do this
		> > b) any technical comments
		> > while the minneapolis meeting already indicated some
		> > support, restating this or any new/additional views
would be helpful
		> >
		> > kaj
		> >
		> >
		> >
		> >
		> > >X-Sender: kaj@
		> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
		> > >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:06:54 -0500
		> > >To:
		> > >From: Kaj Tesink <>
		> > >
		> > >
		> > >all,
		> > >
		> > >attached is the supplemental entity miblet
		> > >discussed a while ago, supporting
		> > >- manufacturing date
		> > >- additional entity info
		> > >the latter uses the method proposed by dave
		> > >to convey information such as CLEIs.
		> > >i do recall that there were some different
		> > >views on whether to use an opaque encoding
		> > >method versus using a dedicated object, but
		> > >please read it over and provide any comments.
		> > >
		> > >kaj
		> >
		Kaj Tesink
		Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
		331 Newman Springs Road
		Red Bank, NJ 07701
		Tel: (732) 758-5254
		Fax: (732) 758-4177
		Entmib mailing list
		Entmib mailing list


	Kaj Tesink
	Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
	331 Newman Springs Road
	Red Bank, NJ 07701
	Tel: (732) 758-5254
	Fax: (732) 758-4177

	_______________________________________________ Entmib mailing