Subject: RE: [Entmib] London Minutes

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:03:55 -0400

Hi All,

Dan has expressed his support for work on a Sensor Entity MIB.
Thanks, Dan.  Obviously, Keith would like to see this happen,
and I would be interested in pursuing this work.

Are there others who would like to work on this?  If we
could find another co-editor and a few people who would contribute
time to review the document, we could be in business.
Anyone out there who has been longing to get an insiders
view of the RFC publication process?

FYI -- I am still waiting for another implementation of the 
logical group in RFC 2737 before we can make the final decision
to advance it to Draft Standard.

Margaret

At 03:42 PM 10/16/01 , Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Actually, Andy presented a set of your slides regarding the Cisco
> > Sensor Entity MIB.  Several people indicated that a Sensor MIB
> > might be a useful thing, although much of the discussion centered
> > on its applicability in industrial control applications.  Ultimately,
> > though, there were very few people who thought that we should pursue
> > this work in the Entity MIB WG, and even fewer people who indicated
> > that they would be willing to contribute. 
> > 
> > Perhaps there are more people on the list who are interested in
> > pursuing this work?  If so, I hope that they will speak up.  At a
> > minimum, we would need someone (or a small group) who is interested 
> > in writing a Sensor MIB document, and several people who are willing 
> > to spend time discussing and reviewing a document.
> > 
>
>Please excuse me for not replying to this mail earlier. The first reason
>is that in London the Entity MIB meeting conflicted with another WG
>meeting that I needed to attend. If I were in that meeting I would have
>added my hand to support this work. The other reason is that the latest
>two messages of this thread are dated 9/11 or around, and it is only now
>that I got to look through the e-mail backlog accumulated in that
>terrible week.
>
>I am supporting the work for a Sensor Entity MIB. Should the Entity MIB
>WG decide to go ahead with this, I would be interested to be a co-editor
>- or whatever is needed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
> > 

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

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:57:57 -0700

>view of the RFC publication process?

I am interested in co-authoring this MIB with Dan.  I think we should
agree on the scope first, of course.  I think the MIB I presented
in London would be a good starting point. The scope of that MIB
is really network device sensors.  I don't object to creating a
generic sensor MIB. Randy Presuhn mentioned (in London) configurable
pressure sensors for factory pipe flow monitoring applications.
Unless any WG members out there building such an SNMP application
object, I would like to bias the scope of the work towards network devices,
things related to networking, etc.   I was there for the Chassis MIB fiasco,
when then WG was told to write a MIB that would manage equally well,
network cards in a chassis or "all the cities in Texas".

>to advance it to Draft Standard.

It's on my list to get you some MIB walks from cisco. The physical group
is implemented on way more platforms than the logical group, but there
are some out there. Soon.

>Margaret

Andy