RE: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

Hi

I don't understand where the impression that we were only planning on adding
a single object that gave operational status came from. My early
presentations on this topic outlined a large number of state objects that
could be defined and from that we whittled down to what we thought was a
reasonable set. Some people wanted more and some people wanted less. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:27 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] 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.

okay, okay...

I do not approve of, or object to, the Entity State MIB
going forward.  

My concerns are regarding the intent of the MIB -- the 
actual problem being addressed.  So I looked to the 
Entmib WG charter page for guidance.  This is all it
says about the Entity State MIB:

 Done    Publish state/status extensions as a WG I-D  

 Mar 04  Submit Entity State MIB to the IESG for Proposed Standard  

Not a word about the problem being addressed.

I thought we set out to add an 'operStatus' object for
physical entities -- a simple ( green, yellow, red )
status indicator.  Applications would still need to
know how to use other MIBs to diagnose or correct a fault.
IMO, there's not much value in a generic indicator beyond
this, so it's best to keep it simple.

 From the draft:

  "Objects are defined to capture administrative, operational and usage
   states. In addition there are further state objects defined to 
   provide additional information for these three basic states."

The document clearly attempts to provide more functionality than a simple
'operStatus' object.  The authors have done a fine job defining and
documenting this functionality.

In order to discuss how well a MIB addresses its intended function, we have
to agree on the intended function.


>Bert

Andy


>> So, if you have any objection to submitting this document for 
>> publication as a Proposed Standard, please make that clear by Friday.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Margaret
>> 
>> 
>> >Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:00:59 -0500
>> >To: [email protected]
>> >From: Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >This is a two week WG Last Call for submitting the Entity State MIB 
>> >to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.  The latest 
>> >version of this document can be found at:
>> >
>> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt
>> >
>> >This WG Last Call will end on Friday, February 6th at 5pm EST.
>> >
>> >Please review the document and forward substantive comments to
>> >the mailing list.   Editorial comments can be sent directly
>> >to the authors.
>> >
>> >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
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib 


_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib