RE: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

Speaking as technical contributor

In general, when a TC is clearly generic, then using the most
intuitive and generic name makes sense. In most cases, such a TC
would be better specified in a generic/independent document 
(or at least a separate MIB module).

As soon as a TC is specific to some technology or to some WG,
then prefixing it with the wg or technology-specific acronym
is the way to go.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: zaterdag 7 februari 2004 14:07
> To: Sharon Chisholm
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: REMINDER: [Entmib] WG Last Call: Entity State MIB
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Could others please express their opinions on this issue?  Who
> believes that these TCs should use a prefix (e.g. EntityOperStatus)
> and why?  Who think that they should not include a prefix, and why?
> 
> Since we are not planning to meet in Seoul, it is important to
> close this issue on the mailing list.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> At 02:34 PM 2/6/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> >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
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Entmib mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>