Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:39 -0500

hi

We had previously agreed that if these state objects were not specific to
physical entities then they should not have this prefix. We seem to be back
to not agreeing that they are specific to physical entities. 

I don't think they are and I don't think they should be. What specifically
about them do people view as being specific to physical entities?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:37 AM
To: David T. Perkins; Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

> HI,
> 
> Tell me again why a prefix of "EntityPhys" doesn't work?
> 
That would work for me!

Bert

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:49:37 +0100

> about them do people view as being specific to physical entities?

I am not so sure how much agreement there has been on this issue. I
understand that you have a strong opinion here, I am less sure that 
this opinion has become WG consensus. 

As I said before: If these TCs are generic, they must go into a separate 
module since I do not want depend on an extension of the entity MIB and
hence also on the entity MIB just because I want to use these generic 
TCs in another MIB. If the TCs are not generic (or we do not know yet), 
lets be conversative and give the names the Ent... prefix.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:49:37 +0100

/js