Subject: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:33:38 -0500

hi

Ok, that means we are not tied to one end of the spectrum. Here are my two
views on where we setting in the spectrum.

Personal: I'm worried about change for the sake of changes or
over-simplification of this MIB which in this continuum could be considered
moving too far over the other way.   The first would end in mapping tables,
which while not ideal are not too bad, the latter would result in me and
others having to continue to use proprietary MIBs to get meaningful state
management. We've put a lot of effort into getting to current set of objects
to try to meet WG needs and I think we are pretty close. If we focus our
efforts on resolving the known issues without falling down the slippery
slope of re-designing everything, we can be done soon. If we don't we could
be here for another two years. I haven't yet seen consensus for deleting any
of the states, but if we get there I think I'd prefer to see them made
optional instead.

Co-Editor: As indicated, if we deviate too much we need to provide a mapping
back to the OSI model much like we have done with other state objects. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:34 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity comments

In hindsight (after having seen discussion over the last 2 days) and based
on:
<clip>
> 
> 1. Prefixing the TCs with ITU prefix. The answer to this
> depends on where we are in that spectrum.
> 
It seems that a ITU is NOT the proper prefix.
But some prefix does make sense.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib