Subject: [Entmib] IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:01:03 -0400

Hi All,

Bob Burget has proposed a change to the Entity Sensor MIB,
specifically:

To change 'entSensor' to 'entPhySensor' in all relevant
descriptors.

This change was proposed because of our current object name
overlap with Cisco's proprietary sensor MIB, which causes
problems for anyone who tries to implement both MIBs on the
same device and/or manage a device that includes both MIBs.

Using the same object names (even though the module name
is different) causes a problem for various tools that assume
that object names will all be globally unique.

Bert is checking with the IESG to determine whether the
proposed object name changes would require the MIB to be
re-cycled through the IESG, or whether they could be done
as part of the RFC editing process.

Before we make any changes, though, we'd like to know if the
group does or doesn't support making this change.  Choices
are:

	- Leave the MIB as-is.
	- Change the names only if it will not require
		re-submission to the IESG.
	- Change the names, even if re-submission to the
		IESG would be required.

Thoughts?

Margaret

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

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 07:27:31 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [Entmib] IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB
> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:01:03 -0400
...
> same device and/or manage a device that includes both MIBs.

Only if they're using broken tools.  I think we should not
indulge in gyrations like this simply so folks can continue
using broken tools.

> that object names will all be globally unique.

Making this change would do no good.  It would support the
continued use of broken tools, which is arguable bad.

> 	- Change the names, even if re-submission to the
...

My choice would be to
Leave it as it is.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:55:28 +0300

I cannot refrain from throwing a word of caution here. 

In real life we can fight to change policies within our own companies, and in some cases we may win if we are ready to invest the needed amount of time and patience. However, we have less influence on the tools the customers are using, and good economic practice says you should not argue too much, or try to lecture your customers about what tools to use. This is why many of us have learned that it is better and simpler to use some elementary rules, like prefixing the names of the objects in the enterprise space MIBs with a prefix identifying the company. How is Andy calling this, a little clumsy rule? 

We should continue certainly to push on the tools vendors who commit the sins mentioned earlier in the thread.

Regards,

Dan

> 
> If a company decides that standards support is not important enough to
> get the tools they use fixed, then that is a business decisions which
> is interesting itself in its interpretation.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
> <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
> 
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:55:28 +0300

Regards,

Dan

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 20:04:01 +0200

I do agree that MIB tools should be able to cope/deal with
duplicate descriptors.

But... the question that the WG chair posed was not to discuss
if tools should be able to cope.

The question is if anybody has a real technical or pragmatic
objection to changing the name from entSensor... to entPhySensor,

If the sensors are indeed for physical entities, then the name
change makes sense. If it at the same time helps an existing
implementation (which helped us do this MIB reasonably fast),
then that may be looked at a nice by-product.

Thanks,
Bert

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:33:56 -0400

Hi All,

We have heard back from the IESG, and changing the object
identifiers in our MIB from entSensorXxx to entPhySensorXxx
would not require any further process steps.  It only required
a quick confirmation on the IESG mailing list, which Bert
has already performed.

Given this fact, and the feedback I've seen from the group,
I believe that we do have rough consensus to make this change.

Andy, Dan and KC, please make the change as quickly as possible
and submit a new draft for publication.

Bob, thanks for bringing this issue to our attention.

Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:33:56 -0400

Hi All,

Margaret