From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:52:01 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

For the benefit of internationalization, the IESG is requesting 
that all MIBs use SnmpAdminString rather than DisplayString.  In
particular, they are asking that this WG's latest MIB module
(draft-ietf-entmib-v2-05.txt) use SnmpAdminString instead of
DisplayString for all objects.

draft-ietf-entmib-v2-05.txt does use SnmpAdminString rather than
DisplayString for all relevant objects which are new since RFC 2037,
but it retains DisplayString for previously defined objects.

Thus, the IESG is asking that we change the objects defined using
DisplayString in RFC 2037 so that they are defined using SnmpAdminString.

It would be simple if we could just change the SYNTAX clause of the
relevent objects (entPhysicalDescr, entPhysicalName, entLogicalDescr).
However, RFC 2578 (section 10.1) says:

 (2)  The value of a SYNTAX clause may be replaced by a textual
      convention, providing the textual convention is defined to use the
      same primitive ASN.1 type, has the same set of values, and has
      identical semantics.

SnmpAdminString has the same primitive ASN.1 type, and it does have the
same semantics, but SnmpAdminString has a larger set of values than
DisplayString.  So, we believe the legality of this is questionable.

Therefore, the IESG is effectively requesting that we deprecate all the
objects which use DisplayString, and define a new object for each such
deprecated object using SnmpAdminString instead.  I believe we
need WG consensus to make such a change.   So, please provide your
input on whether you are willing for such a change to be made, and if
not, then your reasons for opposing it.

Thanks,
Keith.