RE: entity mib support for tcif
"C. M. Heard" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.entmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dan> If this proposal is adopted, it looks like we need a
Dan> DateAndTimeOrNul TC, for these systems that do not support
Dan> manufacture date for some reason.
Dan>
Dan> Dan
Dan>
Dan> >
Dan> > entPhysicalMfgDate OBJECT-TYPE
Dan> > SYNTAX DateAndTime
Dan> > MAX-ACCESS read-only
Dan> > STATUS current
Dan> > DESCRIPTION
Dan> > "The manufacturing date for the physical entity."
Dan> > ::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }
Using a special value (e.g., a zero-length OCTER STRING) to represent
"no date" is one way. Another is just not to instantiate the object.
Since a manager would have to deal with that anyway (existing
implementations don't support this object), maybe that's the
simplest approach.
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) replied:
Bert> Or..., the DESCRIPTION clause could say that all zeroes for
Bert> the DateAndTime would mean
Bert> "manufacture date unknown or nor supported"
Bert>
Bert> Just thinking aloud here.
It seems to me that this would conflict with the DateAndTime
DESCRIPTION clause in RFC 2579.
Bert> By the way, I believe that most of us are on entmib or atommib
Bert> lists, so I have trimmed all the people names (except whom I
Bert> responded to). I have bcc:-ed you all this time, so you can
Bert> spoeak up if my assumtion is incorrect.
Bert>
Bert> But even 2 mailing lists... can we move this to one list for now?
Indeed, I think there is a practical reason to avoid long lists of
addresses in the To: and Cc: fields -- the spam filters for the
lists hosted as ietf.org seem to be trapping such messages as
potential spam. When that happens it results in moderation delays,
which inhibits the discussion; indeed, several messages from this
thread seem to be sitting in the entmib moderation queue as we
speak, and I suspect this as the cause. If this message makes it to
the entmib list without delay, thereby confirming my suspicions, I
suggest that we trim down the To: and Cc: lists and send the
messages to [email protected] only.
Thanks,
Mike