Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:07:47 -0500

hi

Here's my summary of the issues in this #329 thread:

1. It seems that some state/status objects apply to the entity itself, while
others relate more to its ability to do containment. This should be made
more clear.

2. It seems that there is a difference between entities which can contain
other entities and those which never will with respect to some states. This
should be made more clear.

3. Dave doesn't see a use for the usage state.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

Hi

I think it is important to distinguish between standardizing on the
behaviour and characteristics of physical entities and how this information
is reported. I think when you look at different real-world products you
can't really generalize by physical class type, only by the features that
are supported. Some of the fans and power supplies I've heard about are very
sophisticated. I'm not saying that all fans and power supplies should be,
but I don't want to put anything in the MIB that would prevent these
entities from taking advantage of the reporting capabilities within the MIB.

Sharon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:48 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope <clip>

In short: I think the interpretation of the states for the various entity
classes needs to be clarified. (I think Dave also wrote something in that
direction.) Without guidance from the spec, implementations will just not
use the same model and fail to interoperate.

/js

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

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

_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 21:07:47 -0500

hi

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

Hi

Sharon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 8:48 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope <clip>

/js

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:39:04 -0500

The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-329. The issue 
will be considered closed pending the proposed edit being done.

Add a new section 2.3 called "Physical Entity Users"

"There are three ways to define the 'user' of a physical entity"

1. Direct Containment in physical hierarchy

2. Anywhere in physical hierarchy

3. As defined by a means outside the scope of this MIB. This could include
logical interfaces that could run on a port, software that could run on a
module, etc.

Administrative, operational, alarm and standby state use all three
definitions of 'user'. Usage state only supports the concept of direct
containment to simplify implementations of this object."

Add a new section 2.4 called "Physical Class Behaviour"

"This MIB makes no effort to standardize on the behaviours and
characteristics of the various physical classes [RFC2737], but rather how
this information is reported. In looking at real-world products, items
within the same physical class vary substantially. The MIB has therefore
provided guidance on how to support objects where a particular instance of a
physical class can not support part or all of a particular state."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

hi

Sharon

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:39:04 -0500

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 9:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #329] AutoReply: Usage State Scope

hi

Sharon