Re: Confirmming Meeting Consensus

I am wondering if the following draft brings any interest
for the Entity State MIB.

State Model for IPv6 Interfaces
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-syam-ipv6-state-model-00.txt

But this state model is only for IPv6 Interfaces whereas Entity State MIB
covers every thing.

Thank you,
Syam


----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Confirmming Meeting Consensus


> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 08:24:11AM -0500, [email protected]
wrote:
> >
> > During the meeting in Minneapolis, there was agreement
> > in the room on a few points, an dI'd like to confirm
> > that consensus on the mailing list.
> >
> > In particular, we reached agreement at the meeting on
> > the following points:
> >
> >  - We will deprecate the Alias Mapping Table so that the Entity
> >    MIB can advance to Draft Standard.
>
> Well, this is what it takes...
>
> >  - Future extensions to the Entity MIB should be handled as
> >    separate MIBs that augment the Entity MIB.
>
> Not sure how useful such a blanket statement is.
>
> >  - The Entity State MIB is currently too complex and should be
> >    simplified.
>
> I like to know what precisely people find too complex before subscribing
> to such a blanket statement. Can someone please explain (and perhaps
> suggest what precisely needs to be removed)?
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder     International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>     P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>