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

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:09:29 +0200

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

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

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

Personally, I in fact do not care too much whether these labels change
or not. In fact, if Cisco whould have picked names that do not clash
in the first place, nobody would have raised an issue.

On the other hand, I am a bit concerned how much this might create a
precedence. Changing descriptors whenever someone claims that there is
a clash with a proprietary MIB just does not work.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:09:29 +0200

/js

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:11:41 -0700

>in the first place, nobody would have raised an issue.

Actually, the Entity Sensor MIB is derived from the Cisco version,
which had been shipping for a few years before the ENTMIB WG started
on this MIB.

>a clash with a proprietary MIB just does not work.

I agree that this should have been resolved before all the Last Calls
were completed.  I am not worried about setting a precedent of
being pragmatic regarding MIB issues. The prefix 'entPhySensor'
is actually more precise than 'entSensor', so this is not just
a change to work around tool deficiencies.  But I don't want to
delay the RFC by causing another IESG cycle.  I am hoping that
even though this change will cause lots of diffs, the IESG will
see that this is a very minor change that doesn't change any
semantics of any normative text.

>/js

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:11:41 -0700

Andy