RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps

See in line.

Regards,

Dan

> 
> >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 realize that the objects haven't change, but enough of the text has
> changed that I would like to have another WG Last Call before sending
> it to the IESG, just to make sure that the new text has been 
> well-reviewed.

I agree with Margaret. Some of the text changes may amount to changes in semantics, even if the OIDs stay the same.
> 
> >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.
> 
> I just finished reading the new version, and I think that it is
> much simpler and clearer.  Thanks!  I would be happy to see us publish
> the Entity State MIB in its current form.  What do others think?

Yes - with the comments during and after the last call appropriately dealt with. 
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>