RE: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

Hi

I've created issue 322 to track this.

The intention in creating the textual conventions was that they could be
used in other MIBs that wanted to define state/status objects. Prefixing
them with Entity makes this less obvious.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:26 PM
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.

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


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