Subject: [Entmib] Entity MIB Publication Schedule

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:33:01 -0800 (PST)

All,

I intend to post an updated version of the MIB review guidelines
shortly, and one of the normative references is the update to
RFC2737 (currently draft-ietf-entmib-v3-05.txt).  That document is a
normative reference because the PhysicalIndex and
PhysicalIndexOrZero TCs have been listed (at Juergen Schoenwaelder's
request) in Appendix B:  Commonly Used Textual Conventions.

   The following TCs are defined in ENTITY-MIB [RFC2737bis]:

   PhysicalIndex               Integer32 (1..2147483647)
   PhysicalIndexOrZero         Integer32 (0..2147483647)

I added these in the -03 guidelines draft because 2737bis had been
approved for publication, and I assumed that it would be done before
the MIB review guidelines.  I would like to leave them in, but I
don't want to have the guidelines document be help up on account of
delays in publishing 2737bis.

Can anybody offer an educated guess as to when 2737bis will be
finished?

Thanks,

Mike Heard

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:44:43 +0100

> Can anybody offer an educated guess as to when 2737bis will be

Andy, can you post an updated version? Or can you tell us what
the information still missing is that you need to get the next
ID posted?

/js

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

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:47:15 -0800

>the information still missing is that you need to get the next

I'll post an update this week.
I think I understand the edits, but I'm not sure:

 - incorrect IPR text will be removed  

For entPhysicalUris object:
 - any leading and training whitespace is ignored
 - any number of whitespace characters can be present between URIs
 - whitespace can be space or horizontal tab (what else?)
 - The Generic URI citation will be removed, since it is in 
   the REFERENCE clause.
 - The CLEI references provided by Kaj will be added
 - The CLEI intro text provided by Kaj will be added
 - The object DESCRIPTION will indicate that URN namespaces
   such as the CLEI URN are registered with IANA, and that
   registry should be used for further interpretation of
   URI semantics
 - Examples provided by Kaj will be added/integrated 

Does 2737bis need a normative reference to the CLEI URN I-D?
I think so, if it's mentioned inside an OBJECT-TYPE macro.

>/js

Andy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:44:01 +0100

> I think so, if it's mentioned inside an OBJECT-TYPE macro.

Probably depends on the details of the wording. If the CLEI URNs
are used as usage examples while the precise format is expressed 
in terms of general URI formats, one could argue that a suitable 
URI RFC would be normative while the specific CLEI URNs are 
informative examples. If we make the ENTITY-MIB depend on the
CLEI URN I-D, we open another can of worms and delays.

/js

---

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:25:42 -0500

>CLEI URN I-D, we open another can of worms and delays.

Since the CLEI is just an example of the use of that object
I'd suggest that the ENTITY-MIB can not depend on it,
and therefore it should not be normative, no?

kaj

>/js

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
One Telcordia drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Email: [email-masked]
Tel: (732) 699-6068
Fax: (732) 336-2336

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:22:21 -0500

Hi Mike,

>Can anybody offer an educated guess as to when 2737bis will be

Given Andy's commitment to circulate an updated version this week 
that will resolve the open issues, I am hopeful that this MIB will be 
submitted to the IESG within ~3-4 weeks.  Since it should only 
require a 2-week IETF LC, it could be approved by the IESG in ~6-8 
weeks.

Margaret

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:26:33 -0800 (PST)

> require a 2-week IETF LC, it could be approved by the IESG in ~6-8 

Thanks.  I will keep an eye out for the updated draft.

Mike

---

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:54:50 -0500

Andy,

As per below, a way to resolve this could be:

* refer to the Official IANA Registry of URI Schemes
    http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
    and the Official IANA Registry of URN Namespaces
    http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
    for current URI/URN assignments

* include a formal URI/URN RFC as normative; a candidate
    could be:
    [RFC2396] Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax. T.
      Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter. August 1998. (Format:
      TXT=83639 bytes) (Updates RFC1808, RFC1738) (Updated by RFC2732)
      (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)

* include the CLEI URN as informative:
    [URNCLEI] A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the CLEI Code,
     Kaj Tesink, Robert H. Fox, Work in progress, December 31, 2004

kaj

Kaj Tesink