RE: entity mib support for tcif

How would we deal with the compliance issues? I guess that this would mean having a compliance group that includes this object only - right? What about the case where there are several physical entities in the same enclosure, with some of them supporting this capability, other not? 

Thanks,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kaj Tesink [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 08 September, 2003 5:13 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] entity mib support for tcif
> 
> 
> At 01:24 PM 9/7/2003 -0700, 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.
> 
> thats was my thinking too & the reason why i didnt write that
> case in the DESCRIPTION
> 
> kaj
> 
> 
> 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> 
> Kaj Tesink
> Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
> 331 Newman Springs Road
> Red Bank, NJ 07701
> Email: [email protected]
> Tel: (732) 758-5254
> Fax: (732) 758-4177
> 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>