Re: Entity mib support for tcif

hi Sharon,

At 12:56 PM 4/1/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

hi

Where are we in this discussion? Have we decided whether the working
group

wants to take this on?

i think that question is still pending;

we asked for input and expressions of interest well before the

last ietf meeting but there has not been much traffic on this

since that request. so let me repeat the request for input on this
spec:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-00.txt
This is a requirement I've
heard bounced around a few times so I think this

is worth trying to address, but like Dan I have a few concerns with
some

aspects of the proposed solution. As he has mentioned, the title is
not

sufficiently descriptive. In addition, I think the data types might be
too

opaque to be useful.

as per my comments based on Dan's note, there were

some good reasons for the high level title, but

i'd be open to other suggestions.

as for the opaque object, the history is that

the initial proposal based on an octet string

syntax invoked a discussion about flexibility

and some other aspects, and resulted in a proposal

by Dave for the current opaque construct, although

some other comments expressed reservations (i believe

by Juergen and Dan).

i'm willing to go with whatever the rough consensus

dictates.

kaj

Sharon

-----Original Message-----

From: Kaj Tesink
[ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:25 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

Hi Dan,

At 10:03 PM 2/10/2004 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

>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'?

I see what you're trying to do. While this would more accurately reflect
the

content, there is the issue of future compatibility. The problem with

adding

new objects to MIBs over time is that

a) either you add to the original spec; but this means there's a
problem

with advancing the spec over time

b) or you define supplemental specs; the problem here is that you dont
want

all sorts of miblets around; you want to minimize the
number So, similar

as what we did for ATM, and attempted for DS1s, the tactic was to use
this

generic title, so that additional functions could still be added for
a

while. I agree its not perfect. I also thought that in previous

discussions

there were some thoughts about some additional functions(?).

>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?

You're right, some of that did come up before.

My understanding is the following:

- the references point to documents by different standards groups,

and i think are available for a small fee at
www.atis.org

- CLEI codes are defined in those standards;

Telcordia is the registrar to obtain an actual code

In previous discussion it was pointed out that

while CLEIs are in wide use, there is no obligation to

use them; I've tried to reflect that in the draft

in two ways: (a) use an opaque object instead of a dedicated object
as

proposed by Dave, and (b) language for the case that the whole thing
(no

CLEI nor any other application of the object) is not supported.

Kaj

>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

> >

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink

Telcordia Technologies. Inc.

331 Newman Springs Road

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Email: [email protected]

Tel: (732) 758-5254

Fax: (732) 758-4177

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

_______________________________________________

Entmib mailing list

[email protected]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

_______________________________________________

Entmib mailing list

[email protected]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink

Telcordia Technologies. Inc.

331 Newman Springs Road

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Email: [email protected]

Tel: (732) 758-5254

Fax: (732) 758-4177

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/