Re: #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum

Hi Randy,

I did not see strong support for making changes to the Entity State 
MIB to bring it more in line with the ITU model, so I do not think 
that we have consensus to make these changes.

Unless you disagree with my assessment, Sharon should mark this issue 
as closed.

Margaret

At 12:30 PM -0800 3/25/04, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>>  From: "David T. Perkins" <[email protected]>
>>  To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>>  Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:04 PM
>>  Subject: Re: [Entmib] #355: OSI State to Something New Spectrum
>...
>>  Randy - it gets back to a fundamental question, which is
>>  "Is the ITU model and the specification for it worthwhile?"
>>  In the 10+ years that I have asked this question, I have NEVER
>>  gotten an answer. NEVER! In my own extensive analysis
>>  (which included creating both state and alarm MIB modules
>>  that are MUCH closer to the ITU models and specs than the
>>  documents created in the IETF), it just isn't forth it.
>>  Now, if someone would volunteer to show me an implementation
>>  where the benefits surpass the costs, I'll create time to
>>  learn from them, and change my tune. But pointing me to
>>  documents and manuals just doesn't cut it. Is this clear?
>...
>
>I think the difference here is in our understanding of "the ITU model".
>It sounds like your understand it to mean *all* the stuff in X.731.
>However, that's *not* how X.731 was meant to be used.   It provides
>a core (Administrative/Usage/Operational states) of rather wide
>applicability, and a bunch of other knobs and dials that an object
>definer can use when appropriate.  I'm arguing to keep this thing
>simple, i.e., not add anything (even from X.731) unless there is
>a clear need for it.
>
>So, if one were defining an object class using X.731, and only
>operational state was meaningful, then objects of that class simply
>wouldn't have administrative or usage states.  This maps well to
>using the TCs in this MIB module.  From my perspective, this alone
>would be useful.  When one has to do this in something
>like the entity state table, it is not as nice.  The workaround of adding
>additional "not applicable" values to the enumerations is ugly, but it's
>the kind of ugliness we're accustomed to in the SNMP world.
>
>Returning to your question: is having operational state worthwhile?
>Absolutely, for the objects that need it.  Is having administrative state
>worthwhile?  Same answer.  This is how X.731 was designed to be
>used.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib