Re: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

Agree with you

SUbra

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>>Following comments were sent on 1/11/2004: But it is not 
>>taken care in the latest draft.
>>Hoping some one is carrying as part of Editorial fix
>>******
>>a Minor Suggestion:
>>
>>Instead of having these OID definitions:
>>
>>-- Notifications
>>
>>  entStateTraps      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 2 }
>>  entStateTrapPrefix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entStateTraps 0 }
>>
>>
>>We can have
>>entStateNotifs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 0 }
>>
>>and use 'entStateNotifs' in the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE
>>
>>Reason we would like to avoid name 'Traps' is: Latest RFCs refer them
>>as Notifications
>>
>>Also, above OID tree structure will be inline with mib review 
>>guidelines document: draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I agree with that ... and I would even say:
>
>  entStateNotifications OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 0 }
>
>Why make the descriptor more cryptic than needed?
>
>Bert
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>
>  
>