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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Juergen,
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:59:13PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>>>   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!
> You mentioned this earlier and this is why I wrote text that is more
> specific: "physical sensors such as temperature sensors embedded on
> line cards or sensors that report fan rotation speeds". If people
> still misunderstand this because they are only used to scan for
> keywords and then make up their own story I think we can't help.
>
Ok, I give up. Fine with your text.

For a draft that is supposed to educate about IETF OPS, promote it, and 
at the end ease our OPS lives (*), not sure why it became so sensitive....

(*) For example, this draft was mentioned as a potential solution for  
the "Next Generation Mobile Networks (NGMN) requirements on Next 
Generation Converged Operations Requirements (NGCOR)" liaison 
presentation during the last IETF opsarea meeting.

Busy now improving the FCAPS sections.

Regards, Benoit.