RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-329. The issue 
will be considered closed pending the proposed edit being done.

Add a new section 2.3 called "Physical Entity Users"

"There are three ways to define the 'user' of a physical entity"

1. Direct Containment in physical hierarchy

2. Anywhere in physical hierarchy

3. As defined by a means outside the scope of this MIB. This could include
logical interfaces that could run on a port, software that could run on a
module, etc.

Administrative, operational, alarm and standby state use all three
definitions of 'user'. Usage state only supports the concept of direct
containment to simplify implementations of this object."

Add a new section 2.4 called "Physical Class Behaviour"

"This MIB makes no effort to standardize on the behaviours and
characteristics of the various physical classes [RFC2737], but rather how
this information is reported. In looking at real-world products, items
within the same physical class vary substantially. The MIB has therefore
provided guidance on how to support objects where a particular instance of a
physical class can not support part or all of a particular state."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:08 PM
To: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

hi

Here's my summary of the issues in this #329 thread:

1. It seems that some state/status objects apply to the entity itself, while
others relate more to its ability to do containment. This should be made
more clear.

2. It seems that there is a difference between entities which can contain
other entities and those which never will with respect to some states. This
should be made more clear.

3. Dave doesn't see a use for the usage state.

Sharon

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