RE: Re: Entity mib support for tcif

Kaj,

I was among the ones who supported doing this work. I did not change my mind.

Two comments:
1. I would like the title of the document to be more explicit about what is really provided by this MIB. 'Supplemental' is really too generic a title - what about something like 'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing and physical modules identification'?
2. Some of the concerns expressed in the meeting (not by me) were related to the availability and the proprietary nature of the CLEI codes. Can you comment on these? Are the documents mentioned in the REFERENCE clause of the cleiCode object freely available?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On 
> Behalf Of Kaj Tesink
> Sent: 10 February, 2004 6:48 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Fwd: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif
> 
> 
> all,
> 
> the draft i sent to the list last week is now available at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplm
> ib-00.txt
> 
> pl note that the file name was changed (my error).
> in order to move this forward the WG would need
> to accept this as a formal work item.
> 
> so we'd appreciate comments on
> a) whether there is support/objection to do this work
> b) any technical comments
> while the minneapolis meeting already indicated some
> tentative support, restating this or any new/additional
> views would be helpful
> 
> kaj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >X-Sender: [email protected]
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
> >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:06:54 -0500
> >To: [email protected]
> >From: Kaj Tesink <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> >all,
> >
> >attached is the supplemental entity miblet
> >discussed a while ago, supporting
> >- manufacturing date
> >- additional entity info
> >the latter uses the method proposed by dave
> >to convey information such as CLEIs.
> >i do recall that there were some different
> >views on whether to use an opaque encoding
> >method versus using a dedicated object, but
> >please read it over and provide any comments.
> >
> >kaj
>