RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps
"Sharon Chisholm" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.entmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi My vote is for 1), except if the current update resolves issues from the previous working group last call do we need a second? There was substantial rewrite, but no objects were changed. I could go either way. I'm hoping that the more concise text in the latest version appeases the concern that what the working group has come up with is too complicated. Sharon -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps Now that the newest version of the Entity State MIB is available, the WG has a decision to make. In my opinion, we have two choices: (1) We decide that the structure and objects defined in the current draft are acceptable, and we send the current draft to WG Last Call in order to identify and resolve final issues. (2) We decide that we want to change the structure or objects defined in this MIB to make it simpler or more functional. I would appreciate it if people would respond to this message with their opinions, so that I can attempt to judge the consensus of the WG on this issue. Thanks, Margaret _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib