RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps

Hi

I've captured the trap name/oid issue as #306 and will resolve it with any
other issues that arrive from the working group last call, which seems to be
the consensus path forward.

Margaret, I'll leave it to you to call that.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 1:06 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps


I agree with 1) and including the proposal that we should go through a Last
Call again. I do not feel that we had consensus that this is the right
balance between lack of complexity and useful functionality, and the WG
participants should have the formal opportunity to provide again their
inputs.

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: 09 January, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>