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

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:03:21 -0500

hi

Ok, so what would be the proper prefix? I think we have ruled out 'Entity'
and 'ITU'. 

There have been some suggestions about creating a new MIB module to house
the TCs. I've personally seen a lot of interest in using the TCs, so I think
it would be worth the effort. Of course if we deviate too far away from the
well-deployed OSI model, there may be less demand, but it is probably still
worth doing.

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>
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

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:01:17 -0500

hi

I've seen it in-house. I can't remember anything other than general interest
in IETF or elsewhere about this. I want to say there was something discussed
at the last IETF meeting, but I think that was about one of the Alarm TCs. 

I'm speculating there would be lots of use in those places if we get the
state stuff right. Pretty much everything can have state and people seem to
like defining objects for it. Plus, other working groups have shown interest
in the probable cause object we did in a separate Alarm TC MIB which has
come as big surprise to me. All the other TCs we did in that work have also
come in handy in-house.

I might be able to dig some people out, but it might help in convincing them
if I knew specifically what info you were looking for. I know there was
specific interest in the AlarmStatus and StandbyStatus TCs.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:03:21AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
 
> There have been some suggestions about creating a new MIB module to 
> house the TCs. I've personally seen a lot of interest in using the 
> TCs, so I think it would be worth the effort. Of course if we deviate 
> too far away from the well-deployed OSI model, there may be less 
> demand, but it is probably still worth doing.

Where did you see this interest? Inhouse, other companies, WG in the IETF?
ITU? And can these people speak up or is this "confidential" interest in
these TCs?

/js

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

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:01:17 -0500

hi

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

/js

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:17:47 -0800

HI,

Tell me again why a prefix of "EntityPhys" doesn't work?

>But some prefix does make sense.
Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:55:36 -0800

HI,

I don't think that you would find anyone that has knowledge and experience
in the SMI to disagree with the below quote from Bert. However, many of
us would have problems with classifying the TCs in the ent-phys-state
MIB document as generic.

And by the way, if anyone who has not yet read X.731, X.721, and X.732
(yes, you really need all 3) and could not get a copy, sent me private
email and I'll help you get a copy.

At 12:21 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>hi
>
>I don't remember anyone objecting to Bert's Post:
>
>"In general, when a TC is clearly generic, then using the most 
>intuitive and generic name makes sense. In most cases, such a TC would 
>be better specified in a generic/independent document 
>(or at least a separate MIB module).
>
>As soon as a TC is specific to some technology or to some WG, then 
>prefixing it with the wg or technology-specific acronym is the way to 
>go."
>
>Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus? This is
>what I referred to as the consensus, not the following bit that was
>preference with "I think". If it wasn't clear enough that I was expressing
>my opinion at that point and not my assessment of working group consensus,
>then I can certainly prefix all personal opinions with "personal" like I did
>in a recent email and all the others with 'editor'.
>
>Sharon
>
>Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:50 AM
>On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:39:39AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>
>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
>
>-- 

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:03:37 -0500

hi

Editor: Yes, that is the bit I'm trying to gage consensus on and understand.
For those who disagree the TCs are generic, is the problem

1. That you don't think we should be creating general TCs
2. There is something in the current TCs that would prevent them from being
used generically

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

HI,

I don't think that you would find anyone that has knowledge and experience
in the SMI to disagree with the below quote from Bert. However, many of us
would have problems with classifying the TCs in the ent-phys-state MIB
document as generic.

And by the way, if anyone who has not yet read X.731, X.721, and X.732 (yes,
you really need all 3) and could not get a copy, sent me private email and
I'll help you get a copy.

At 12:21 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus? This 
>is what I referred to as the consensus, not the following bit that was 
>preference with "I think". If it wasn't clear enough that I was 
>expressing my opinion at that point and not my assessment of working 
>group consensus, then I can certainly prefix all personal opinions with 
>"personal" like I did in a recent email and all the others with 
>'editor'.
>
>Sharon
>

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:21:32 -0500

hi

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:50 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

 

/js

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:55:36 -0800

HI,

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:03:37 -0500

hi

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

HI,

Regards,
/david t. perkins