Re: Entity State MIB Status

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 6:31 AM
> Subject: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Status
...
>  307 'notSupported' is semantically wrong
> - This has been changed to 'unavailable'. Some people had wanted
> 'unknown'. Should
> I have changed this to unknown?

Part of the difficulty in naming this one is that it seems to be doing
triple-duty for notApplicable as well as notSupported and notAvailable.
It's unclear whether the distinction would actually be useful, so as long
as everyone agrees that "unavailable" includes these cases, I'd be happy.

>  311 DateAndTimeOrZero
> - Didn't really have proposed resolution or rather we had a couple
> comments after
> the proposed resolution
...

Since DateAndTime is already used this way (and has been for a long time)
I don't see the value of adding a new TC.  However, it might make sense
to see if we could agree on an erratum for RFC 2579.

Randy