Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up

Margaret Wasserman <> Wed, 08 December 2004 18:42 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22746 for <>; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cc6Yh-0000Oj-9B; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:29:03 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cc6Ud-0007la-FO for; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:24:51 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21535 for <>; Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:24:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cc6bS-0004Ni-I4 for; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:31:54 -0500
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 230702; Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:18:03 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200729bddcf64d2d89@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:24:15 -0500
To: Andy Bierman <>
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] entPhysicalUris object wrap-up
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

>I propose that this object be changed back to entPhysicalClei.
>It should contain the empty string (for none) or a URI
>string conforming to the CLEI URN specification (from Kaj).
>If we think of other required semantics in the future,
>we can add new objects then.

This makes sense to me if we can quickly, easily resolve the reference issues.

Otherwise, I think we should just remove the object and let others 
add it as an "augments" if/when the proposed contents are 

>2) references
>As per Bert's comments, the citation to RFC 2396 will be
>removed from the DESCRIPTION clause, since it is redundant.
>Should this be changed to point to the CLEI URN specification,
>or just add another document to the REFERENCE clause?
>Where else should this spec be cited in the document?
>There are normative references, so how long will the
>Entity MIB be held up waiting for the CLEI URN RFC?

If we pursue this choice, I think that the CLEI URN document needs to 
be a normative reference.  Kaj submitted a draft, but I don't know 
what shape it is in and/or whether Bert is willing to either: (1) 
allow this group to take on that document, or (2) move it forward as 
an individual submission.  How close do folks think it is to ready 
for publication?  Has a MIB doctor reviewed it?  Bert, do you have 
any thoughts?

>3) conformance
>Currently the new OBJECT-GROUP (entityPhysical3Group)
>is in the MANDATORY-GROUPS clause.  If both objects
>allow for null values, then this should not be a problem.


>4) examples
>I don't really have time (or enough info) to fill in the
>examples in section 4, but I know somebody will eventually
>ask about this before RFC publication.  I would really
>appreciate some help updating the examples.  (I need to
>add an example for entPhysicalClass==cpu(12) as well.)
>Any volunteers? (4.1 and 4.2 can be done independently)
>I would like to get this over with now ;-)

Yes.  It would be good to get this finished, so volunteer would be appreciated.


Entmib mailing list