RE: REMINDER: WG Last Call: Entity State MIB

At 02:56 PM 2/8/2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>We originally considered doing the state/status extensions as
>part of the Entity MIB, and those first discussion did mention
>a single object.  However, by November 2002 we had a much more
>complex model and agreed that it would be better to do this as
>a separate MIB.
>
>We agreed to accept the Entity State MIB as a WG document before
>March 2003, and at that time it was at least as complex as it is
>now.  We've been working on this MIB for over a year, and I
>believe that it should take WG consensus to make a major
>change to it now.  Do others agree?
>
>In Minneapolis, the complexity of this MIB was raised as an issue.
>There was a general sense of the room that the MIB was too
>complex, but many people who were involved in earlier discussions,
>including the editor, weren't present.  When the discussion was
>brought to the mailing list, I did not see clear consensus that
>we need to reduce the complexity of the MIB.

I don't disagree with you about the WG consensus.
I'm not objecting to the MIB going forward.  But I wouldn't
be surprised if application developers end up writing
a complex function to convert an entStateEntry to
a simple LED-type enum for the entity.


>Sharon did try to address concerns about the complexity of this
>MIB in the latest version by simplifying and streamlining the
>description.
>
>So, where do we stand on this issue?

I'd say it's closed.
The WG doesn't think a simple operStatus type
of object is sufficient. 



>Are there others who have read the current MIB and strongly
>believe that it needs to be simplified?  Or not?

I didn't ask for the MIB to be simplified.


>Margaret

Andy



>At 02:28 PM 2/6/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Entmib mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib