RE: #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

hi

I've seen it in-house. I can't remember anything other than general interest
in IETF or elsewhere about this. I want to say there was something discussed
at the last IETF meeting, but I think that was about one of the Alarm TCs. 

I'm speculating there would be lots of use in those places if we get the
state stuff right. Pretty much everything can have state and people seem to
like defining objects for it. Plus, other working groups have shown interest
in the probable cause object we did in a separate Alarm TC MIB which has
come as big surprise to me. All the other TCs we did in that work have also
come in handy in-house.

I might be able to dig some people out, but it might help in convincing them
if I knew specifically what info you were looking for. I know there was
specific interest in the AlarmStatus and StandbyStatus TCs.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:40 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)


On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:03:21AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
 
> There have been some suggestions about creating a new MIB module to 
> house the TCs. I've personally seen a lot of interest in using the 
> TCs, so I think it would be worth the effort. Of course if we deviate 
> too far away from the well-deployed OSI model, there may be less 
> demand, but it is probably still worth doing.

Where did you see this interest? Inhouse, other companies, WG in the IETF?
ITU? And can these people speak up or is this "confidential" interest in
these TCs?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany