Subject: RE: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:27:16 -0400

hi

I've opened tickets to track all of the issues except 'e', which is a
previously discussed and closed issue. I likely crammed too many points into
the first one. Time will tell.

648  Wordsmith - Various  
651  Notification Description Changes  
649  Clarification on 'this information'   
652  Security Considerations Text Changes    
650  Rename to ENTITY-STATE-TC-MIB 
653  Don't need to import the textual conventions?  

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Margaret Wasserman
Subject: Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt
<clip>

e) I know we have beaten this horse, but still I do not really
   understand why there are actually two MIB modules. Having two MIB
   modules only has an advantage if (a) the TCs progress faster on the
   standards track than the state MIB module or (b) some other module
   uses the TCs while the state MIB itself goes to historic. I find
   both scenarios rather unrealistic and hence you argue to simply put
   the TCs into the state MIB module.

<clip>

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