Re: #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:33 AM
> Subject: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
...
> Co-Editor: As indicated, if we deviate too much we need to provide a mapping
> back to the OSI model much like we have done with other state objects.

Such deviation seems contrary to the whole point of developing this MIB
module in the first place.  The more closely the semantics are aligned
with the OSI ones (within the constraints imposed by the differing object
models), the better.

...
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 10:34 AM
> To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity comments
>
>
> In hindsight (after having seen discussion over the last 2 days) and based
> on:
> <clip>
> >
> > 1. Prefixing the TCs with ITU prefix. The answer to this
> > depends on where we are in that spectrum.
> >
> It seems that a ITU is NOT the proper prefix.
> But some prefix does make sense.
...

I'd have no problem with EntState as a prefix for the TCs, although I'd
also have no objection to leaving them un-prefixed, but in a separate
MIB module in the same document.

Randy