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

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:49:12 -0400

hi

<clip> <Sharon>
> I think the term 'Entity' is too limiting if we agree we are going for 
> a more generic set of TCs. It occurs to be that we use the term 
> 'resource' in the Alarm MIB when we introduced the concept of a 
> 'ResourceId' as well as within the description clauses of the TCs in 
> this MIB. Would a prefix of 'ResourceState' work? </Sharon>

<randy>
I'd strongly prefer "EntityState" as a prefix.  The word "entity" is just
the college and sci-fi equivalent of "thingie", so I don't see how it would
be limiting.

</Randy>

I think because of the use we've made of it, it has morphed somewhat from
its generic use into being more specific to physical devices and logical
representations of multiple physical devices. If others don't feel using the
entity prefix will limit how people consider using the textual conventions,
then I can live with it. I just think that resource comes with less baggage
in the SNMP space.

Sharon

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

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:49:12 -0400

hi

<clip> <Sharon>

<randy>

</Randy>

Sharon