RE: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

At 03:30 AM 2/6/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> Given that this is a second WG Last Call for this document, that
>> several people reviewed it during the previous WG Last Call, and
>> that Sharon did a great job of maintaining an issue list and
>> documenting the resolution of each issue, I am planning to interpret
>> silence as agreement to send this document to the IESG.
>> 
>I do not want to step on the toes of our WG chair, but yet...
>I would actually appreciate if the people who spoke up (a while ago)
>that the MIB was too complex, that they do state if they are now
>OK with this version!
>
>PLEASE PARTICIPATE and express your opinion.

comment on the MIB itself...

the TCs should be named with a prefix. E.g.,
OperState -> EntityOperState.  This applies to
all the TCs in the draft.

Andy