RE: Re: Entity mib support for tcif

At 03:34 PM 4/9/2004 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:

Hi,

Yes, we have a need for this
MIB. Any chance of getting this done?

i think the following issues have been raised:

1. document title is too vague

2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement

3. acceptance as work item

1. document title is too vague:

current proposed title is:

Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed Objects

the current contents of the MIB module is only two objects

- manufacturing date

- additional info (an opaque object with one currently identified

application)

i proposed this title to be

a) in line with similar documentation techniques in the past

b) to be compatible with possible extensions in the future

given the two current objects, and that one of them is opaque,

it is hard to be very specific. Dan suggested something like:

'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing date and physical module
identification'

or perhaps:

Extensions to entPhysicalTable of the Entity MIB

(more precise but still not very illuminating)

I suggest we go with Dan's proposal.

2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement.

the suggested construct was based on neat suggestions by Dave

and was meant to accommodate several concerns and also

allow flexibility. but several comments pointed out that

this may be too cumbersome to implement. i attach the

original proposal which was an object dedicated to CLEI.

note that my original question was posed in the context of

extending the Entity MIB directly instead of creating a separate

document.

any strong feelings against going back to the original? Dave?

3. acceptance as work item

since the original proposal i've seen several supporting comments

but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge

kaj

---snip from initial
posting-------------------------------------------------

=============================================================

new objects:

entPhysicalCLIECode OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX
SnmpAdminString (SIZE (0..10))

MAX-ACCESS read-write

STATUS
current

DESCRIPTION

"The CLIE Code for the physical entity. If a CLIE Code

is unknown or non-existent, the entPhysicalCLIECode will

be set to a zero-length string instead."

::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }

REFERENCE "TCIF-02-004, Guideline for data
elements

included in the Management Information Base,

Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF), 09/11/2002.

ANSI T1.213-2001, Coded identification of equipment entities

of the North American telecommunications system for

information exchange, ANSI.

ANSI T1.213a-2001, Supplement to T1.213-2001,

Coded identification of equipment entities of the North

American telecommunications system for information exchange,

to correct the representation of the Basic Code in

Figure B.1, ANSI."

entPhysicalMfgDate OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX
DateAndTime

MAX-ACCESS read-only

STATUS
current

DESCRIPTION

"The manufacturing date for the physical entity."

::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[ mailto:[email protected] ]
On Behalf Of Kaj Tesink
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:38 AM
To: Sharon Chisholm; [email protected]
Subject: [Entmib] 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

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_______________________________________________ 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

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