RE: #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

hi

Editor: Yes, that is the bit I'm trying to gage consensus on and understand.
For those who disagree the TCs are generic, is the problem

1. That you don't think we should be creating general TCs
2. There is something in the current TCs that would prevent them from being
used generically

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)


HI,

I don't think that you would find anyone that has knowledge and experience
in the SMI to disagree with the below quote from Bert. However, many of us
would have problems with classifying the TCs in the ent-phys-state MIB
document as generic.

And by the way, if anyone who has not yet read X.731, X.721, and X.732 (yes,
you really need all 3) and could not get a copy, sent me private email and
I'll help you get a copy.

At 12:21 PM 3/25/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>hi
>
>I don't remember anyone objecting to Bert's Post:
>
>"In general, when a TC is clearly generic, then using the most
>intuitive and generic name makes sense. In most cases, such a TC would 
>be better specified in a generic/independent document 
>(or at least a separate MIB module).
>
>As soon as a TC is specific to some technology or to some WG, then
>prefixing it with the wg or technology-specific acronym is the way to 
>go."
>
>Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus? This 
>is what I referred to as the consensus, not the following bit that was 
>preference with "I think". If it wasn't clear enough that I was 
>expressing my opinion at that point and not my assessment of working 
>group consensus, then I can certainly prefix all personal opinions with 
>"personal" like I did in a recent email and all the others with 
>'editor'.
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:50 AM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Entmib] #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)
>
>
>On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:39:39AM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> 
>> We had previously agreed that if these state objects were not 
>> specific
>> to physical entities then they should not have this prefix. We seem to 
>> be back to not agreeing that they are specific to physical entities.
> 
>> I don't think they are and I don't think they should be. What
>> specifically about them do people view as being specific to physical 
>> entities?
>
>I am not so sure how much agreement there has been on this issue. I 
>understand that you have a strong opinion here, I am less sure that 
>this opinion has become WG consensus.
>
>As I said before: If these TCs are generic, they must go into a 
>separate
>module since I do not want depend on an extension of the entity MIB and
>hence also on the entity MIB just because I want to use these generic 
>TCs in another MIB. If the TCs are not generic (or we do not know yet), 
>lets be conversative and give the names the Ent... prefix.
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder               International University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>     P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Regards,
/david t. perkins