Subject: RE: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:27:26 -0500

hi

I've updated the issues in http://rt.psg.com. The tool often has a lot of
issues with timeouts and things. I've learned a few tricks to work around
them.

Comments inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:32 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Final Closure on Entity State MIB Issues
<clip>

#307: 'notSupported' is semantically wrong

	I think "unknown" as suggested by Keith is what we typically
	use and prefer this over "unavailable" or any other terms.

Sharon> I don't have a strong opinion on this. Others did though.

#308: Shutting Down Admin State

	I tend to agree with Keith' comment and I do not think that
	the response addresses Keith issue with the name/state itself.

Sharon> Well, shutting down has to be an administrative state since you have
a choice of graceful shutdown and just shutting it down. As far as the name
goes, in order to fully describe state, it would have to be
'noNewUsageThenShuttingDown'. It's sort of a fun name, but some may think it
too long.

<clip>

#311: DateAndTimeOrZero ?

	The new text refers to the initialization of "the local
	system" - whatever that may be. In a subagent environment, the
	actual instrumentation might not have easy access to what an
	operator would consider "the local system". So I think it
	would be better to adopt the approach where a the special
	value '0000000000000000'H is returned. Sure, this value falls
	not strictly under the DateAndTime TC set of values, but we
	have several MIBs using this special value on the standards
	track so this should work here as well.

Sharon> I like this simpler approach. I had been half way down the path of
defining new TCs to behave like this when I looked up how we did it in the
Alarm MIB. Would answering the question of what the 'local system' is or
using a better term help?

<clip>

#322: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

	I think the TC names should be prefixed.

Sharon> Ok. I think we need to step back a level on this one. We seemed to
have had agreement on the list that if the TCs were intended to be not
specific to Entities, then they should not have the prefix but if they were
they should. So, I suspect we are disagreeing on whether these TCs are
specific to Entities. I certainly never intended them to be and went out of
my way to ensure they weren't. Is there something in their definition that
leads you to believe they are limited in their application to Entities?

#325:

	The figures in the discussion of this issue are wrong as
	xxxCompliances(1) and xxxGroups(2) are typically registered
	below xxxConformance(2).

Sharon> This is from the MIB Review Guidelines. 

<clip>

#328: Containment Hierach and entPhysicalContainedin

	I think this issue is not really solved. It must be clear in
	all cases where a description clause talks about containment
	what this really means.

Sharon> Embedded? Perhaps.

<clip>

#334: Table, Index Descriptions

	I am having problems with the suggested new text. In
	particular the following sentence:

	Entries appear in this table for values of entPhysicalClass
        [RFC2737] that in this implementation are able to report any
        of the state or status stored in this table.

	I think that the class is not necessarily the property which
	defines whether a component will be able to report useful
	information in a subagent environment. I think this sentence
	hurts more than it helps. BTW, the most obvious reason for
	sparse augmentations is that new hardware and software will in
	practice be mixed with old hardware and software in subagent
	environments. (Not sure we need to document this. I think it
	is sufficient to say it is a sparse augmentation.)

Sharon>I have had a lot of trouble with this text since I actually don't
think this table should be sparse augment. I was just going with a working
group consensus we agreed to a long time ago. Your reasons makes more sense.
I'll try to rework the text.

#335: Notification Comments

	To me, entStateStandby related notifications might make sense
	and this should not be ruled out by being late. However, there
	needs to be a concrete proposal to look at. Without a concrete
	proposal, no change seems OK.

Sharon> Ok, so in the absence of that ...

Sharon

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:53:37 +0100

> using a better term help?

I think it is not a terminology issue. Consider a hot-swappable line
card which has its own subagent. It can easily report
'0000000000000000'H but making it report the date and time of the
initialization of the "local system" is either very hard (if local
system means the system runnning the master agent) or you just report
the time when the card was inserted, which is kind of meaningless for
the manager. So I think the only workable solution is really to report
the special value '0000000000000000'H since it avoids any ambiguities
and is very easy to implement.
 
> leads you to believe they are limited in their application to Entities?

As others have noted before: If these TCs are really generic, put them 
into a separate MIB module and perhaps even document so that these 
definitions also get wider review (and actual users). If I were writing
a MIB on a standards track, I would think more than twice whether I
import these TCs for a module which itself depends on other modules
which I really do not want to depend on. Generic TCs really should go
into self contained modules.

To complete this piece of work on the charter, I do not think that we
have to produce generic TCs for operational and usage state.
 
> Sharon> This is from the MIB Review Guidelines. 

My copy of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt> clearly
has the following.
 
         xxxMIB
         |
         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
         +-- xxxObjects(1)
         +-- xxxConformance(2)
             |
             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
             +-- xxxGroups(2)

And since I contributed this figure to the ID, I am almost sure my 
copy of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt> is correct...

> Sharon> Embedded? Perhaps.

??? Not sure I understand this.
 
> I'll try to rework the text.

I think the relationship has to be sparse and I do not think we need to 
write lengthy explanations about this.

/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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:53:37 +0100

xxxMIB
         |
         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
         +-- xxxObjects(1)
         +-- xxxConformance(2)
             |
             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
             +-- xxxGroups(2)

 

/js