Re: To meet or not to meet?

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:36:47PM -0400, Kaj Tesink wrote:
> 
> i cannot be present, but can check whether another telcordia person can 
> attend.
> as far as the draft is concerned, we're talking actually only about two 
> objects,
> of which only one is under debate. dave p. had volunteered a fix, so that 
> could
> be something to discuss (URN approach). i'm personally rather flexible wrt 
> the
> solution so if either the meeting or an adhoc group can coble up something
> we can put it in the draft and be done.

I think the changes on the MIB side are rather straight forward. Below
is a first cut an proposed new text:

3.2.  entSupplPhysicalUris

   This object provides additional identification information about the 
   physical entity. This object may be used to encode for example a 
   URI containing a Common Language Equipment Identifier (CLEI) URI
   [XXX] for the managed physical entity. If no additional identification 
   information is known or supported about the physical entity the object 
   is not instantiated.

And in the MIB definition itself:

   entSupplPhysicalUris OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX      DisplayString
       MAX-ACCESS  read-write
       STATUS	   current
       DESCRIPTION
 	  "This object contains additional identification information 
	   about the physical entity. The object contains URIs and
	   therefore the syntax of this object must conform to RFC
	   2396 section 2. Multiple URIs may be separated by white 
	   space characters."
       ::= { entSupplPhysicalEntry 2 }

The definition of the cleiCode OBJECT-IDENTITY will be removed and
someone from Telcordia needs to write up a document registering a
URN namespace for CLEI codes. 

Note that [XXX] would refer to a most likely informational RFC which
registers a URN namespace for CLEI codes.

/js

P.S. I will not attend the meeting in San Diego. 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany