Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

 

One comment on Benoit's comment: 

 

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Benoit Claise

  The second important infrastructure data model is defined in the 
  Entity MIB [RFC4133]. It exports the containment hierarchy of the 
  physical entities (slots, modules, ports) that make up a networking 
  device and as such it is a key data model for inventory management. 
  Physical entities can have pointers to other data models that 
  provide more specific information about a physical entity (e.g. 
  physical ports usually point to the related network interface). 
  Entity MIB extensions exist for physical sensors such as temperature 
  sensors embedded on line cards or sensors that report fan rotation 
  speeds [RFC3433]. 

BC> I would not mention this ENTITY-MIB extension about sensor. To the
audience, it might seem that we have master the Internet of Things with
SNMP, which is not correct at all!




Another extension models states and alarms of 
  physical entities [RFC4268]. Some vendors have extended the basic 
  Entity MIB with several proprietary data models. 




[[DR]] I respectfully disagree with Benoit's comment. There is not claim
that 'we have mastered the IoT management', just an example of the way
the Entity MIB can be used and extended to represent information from
physical sensors, followed by another example about alarms. I would
rather leave them as written by Juergen. 

 

Dan

(speaking as contributor)