RE: entity mib support for tcif

At 01:24 PM 9/7/2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
>>>>>> 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.

yes, some fields do not allow the value zero.

>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 for pointing this out.  I run the entmib list
and I try to check the queue once a day.  Messages are
blocked for too many recipients and also messages posted
by non-members of the list.


>Thanks,
>
>Mike

Andy