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

Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com> Mon, 03 May 2004 22:34 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 SAA09059 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:34:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlxn-0000aL-R7; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:31:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BKlmA-0006Gf-OE for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:19:03 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08155 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BKlm7-0004TD-OM for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:18:59 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BKll7-0004LW-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:17:59 -0400
Received: from thumper.research.telcordia.com ([128.96.41.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BKlkC-00047b-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 03 May 2004 18:17:00 -0400
Received: from shannon.research.telcordia.com (shannon [128.96.81.11]) by thumper.research.telcordia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i43MGG8o022322; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:16:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kaj-100.research.telcordia.com (kaj-100.cc.telcordia.com [128.96.71.110]) by shannon.research.telcordia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA09362; Mon, 3 May 2004 18:16:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040503134541.02568348@128.96.81.11>
X-Sender: kaj@128.96.81.11
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:06:45 -0400
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
From: Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
Cc: entmib@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.2(snapshot 20021217) (thumper)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, HTML_20_30,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY, NO_OBLIGATION autolearn=no version=2.60
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>


Margaret, thanks for your note.

Bert, see attached message from Margaret.
the original thread is attached as well.

as you know on this issue there were three issues raised:
1. document title is too vague
2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement
3. acceptance as work item

on (1): seems resolvable to all satisfaction
on (2): there has been some back&forth on this one; Juergen
         and Dave P thought that a URN approach may work best;
         Dave P. will provide a strawman (due to him being sick
         last week this has been delayed).
on (3): Margaret refers to you given the state of the entmib WG.
         all I can add is that there have been a handful of
         expressions of support, and no objections (comments
         have focused on (1) and (2) instead).

your guidance on how to carry this forward is appreciated,

kaj



X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:09:45 -0400
To: Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>, entmib@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.2(snapshot 20021217) (thumper)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS - amavis-milter (http://www.amavis.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amavis.org/)


Hi Kaj,

I'm sorry that I didn't answer this message sooner.  I was on vacation in mid-April, and I'm only catching up now.

3. acceptance as work item
since the original proposal i've seen several supporting comments
but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge

The Entity MIB WG charter does not currently include this work, so we could not accept this document as a work item without a charter update.

There are at least two concerns about updating the Entity MIB WG charter to include this item:

1) The WG has not been timely in completing our current work.

2) I was appointed to the IESG last July, and it is not considered a good idea for IESG members to run WGs.  I stayed on as entmib WG chair because we were expected to complete our work within a few months (not that things have gone exactly as planned...). If the life of the WG will be extended by new work items, it will be necessary for Bert to identify and appoint a new chair.

So, if you want to pursue this work in the IETF, you should talk to Bert Wijnen about the best way to do that.  In the meantime, the only chartered work items for the entmib WG are completing the Entity State MIB and getting the Entity MIB promoted to Draft Standard.

Margaret



ORGINAL THREAD:
===========================================================

X-Sender: kaj@128.96.81.11
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:01:31 -0400
To: entmib@ietf.org
From: Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.2(snapshot 20021217) (thumper)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,
HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,NO_OBLIGATION
autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: entmib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib" rel="nofollow">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" rel="nofollow">https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>,
<mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

At 03:34 PM 4/9/2004 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:
Hi,

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


i think the following issues have been raised:
1. document title is too vague
2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement
3. acceptance as work item


1. document title is too vague:
current proposed title is:
Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed Objects

the current contents of the MIB module is only two objects
- manufacturing date
- additional info (an opaque object with one currently identified
application)

i proposed this title to be
a) in line with similar documentation techniques in the past
b) to be compatible with possible extensions in the future

given the two current objects, and that one of them is opaque,
it is hard to be very specific. Dan suggested something like:
'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing date and physical module identification'

or perhaps:

Extensions to entPhysicalTable of the Entity MIB
(more precise but still not very illuminating)

I suggest we go with Dan's proposal.


2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement.
the suggested construct was based on neat suggestions by Dave
and was meant to accommodate several concerns and also
allow flexibility. but several comments pointed out that
this may be too cumbersome to implement. i attach the
original proposal which was an object dedicated to CLEI.
note that my original question was posed in the context of
extending the Entity MIB directly instead of creating a separate
document.
any strong feelings against going back to the original? Dave?


3. acceptance as work item
since the original proposal i've seen several supporting comments
but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge

kaj





---snip from initial posting-------------------------------------------------


=============================================================
new objects:

entPhysicalCLIECode OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SnmpAdminString (SIZE (0..10))
MAX-ACCESS read-write
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The CLIE Code for the physical entity. If a CLIE Code
is unknown or non-existent, the entPhysicalCLIECode will
be set to a zero-length string instead."
::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }
REFERENCE "TCIF-02-004, Guideline for data elements
included in the Management Information Base,
Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF), 09/11/2002.
ANSI T1.213-2001, Coded identification of equipment entities
of the North American telecommunications system for
information exchange, ANSI.
ANSI T1.213a-2001, Supplement to T1.213-2001,
Coded identification of equipment entities of the North
American telecommunications system for information exchange,
to correct the representation of the Basic Code in
Figure B.1, ANSI."

entPhysicalMfgDate OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX DateAndTime
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The manufacturing date for the physical entity."
::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }



-faye
-----Original Message-----
From: entmib-admin@ietf.org [
mailto:entmib-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kaj Tesink
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:38 AM
To: Sharon Chisholm; entmib@ietf.org
Subject: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

hi Sharon,

At 12:56 PM 4/1/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

hi

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:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-00.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-00.txt





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
dictates.

kaj





Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Kaj Tesink [mailto:kaj@research.telcordia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:25 AM
To: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif



Hi Dan,

At 10:03 PM 2/10/2004 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>Kaj,
>
>I was among the ones who supported doing this work. I did not change my
>mind.
>
>Two comments:
>1. I would like the title of the document to be more explicit about
>what
>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
adding
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 previous
discussions
there were some thoughts about some additional functions(?).

>2. Some of the concerns expressed in the meeting (not by me) were
>related
>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 http://www.atis.org/" rel="nofollow">www.atis.org
- 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 supported.

Kaj







>Thanks and Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: entmib-admin@ietf.org [mailto:entmib-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf
> > Of Kaj Tesink
> > Sent: 10 February, 2004 6:48 PM
> > To: entmib@ietf.org
> > Subject: Fwd: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
> >
> >
> > all,
> >
> > the draft i sent to the list last week is now available at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplm
> > 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 work
> > b) any technical comments
> > while the minneapolis meeting already indicated some tentative
> > support, restating this or any new/additional views would be helpful
> >
> > kaj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >X-Sender: kaj@128.96.81.11
> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
> > >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:06:54 -0500
> > >To: entmib@ietf.org
> > >From: Kaj Tesink <kaj@research.telcordia.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >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@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib