Re: FW: [psg.com #322] AutoReply: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

HI,

If the TCs are truly "generic", then they shouldn't be identified
with a specific MIB module. However, I'm not at all convinced
that they are generic. In fact, I really don't believe that
thye are appropriate for both physical and logical entities.

So, I support changing the descriptors(what is called "names"
below) for the TCs.

At 03:43 PM 2/11/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-322. The issue will be
>considered closed with no changes made to the document.
>
>There were various bits of discussion on the list on when it is appropriate
>to use a MIB specific prefix on a textual convention and when it does not.
>As the intention on these textual conventions is for general use it would
>seem that a prefix is not appropriate. The proposal is to keep the names as
>is.
>
>Sharon
>-----Original Message-----
>From: entity-state [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:33 PM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Subject: [psg.com #322] AutoReply: Textual Convention Names (Prefix)
>
><clip>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Andy Bierman [[email protected]]
>
>the TCs should be named with a prefix. E.g.,
>OperState -> EntityOperState.  This applies to
>all the TCs in the draft.
/david t. perkins