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

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

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

-----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)

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

-- 
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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:11:01 +0100

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:21:32PM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

> Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus?

> > be back to not agreeing that they are specific to physical entities.

I think this is not a fair summary of what Bert said (see the quote 
above) since you leave out more than half of his message which I 
consider important. And this is why I wrote:

> I am not sure how much agreement there has been on this issue

Clear now?

[I think my position on this issue is rather well documented now 
 and unless real new arguments come up, I really prefer to stay out 
 of this debate.]

/js

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:11:01 +0100

Clear now?

/js