Re: CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation

At 10:20 AM 8/16/2004 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:41:02PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> > During the Entity MIB meeting at IETF 60 in San Diego, there was
> > consensus in the room  for the following course of action:
> >
> > (1) Pull the Entity State MIB document out of IESG processing
> > (currently submitted for publication as a Draft Standard)
> >
> > (2) Update the document to undo the deprecation of the
> > entAliasMapping identifier, and
> >
> > (3) Re-submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for publication as a
> > Proposed Standard.
> >
> > We now need to confirm this consensus on the mailing list.  Are there
> > any objections to taking this course of action?  Other comments?
>
>Sounds like a good plan to me. But if we recycle at Proposed, why do
>we then not simply put the entSupplPhysicalManufacturingDate and the
>entSupplPhysicalManufacturerInfo objects into the entPhysicalEntry
>where they actually belong? A new compliance statement would deal
>with these additions so existing implementations that comply to
>entity2Compliance would not be affected.


juergen, thanks for pointing this out.
makes a lot of sense & would work for me.

kaj



>/js
>
>--
>Juergen Schoenwaelder               International University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>     P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
REACH INFO HAS CHANGED; NEW INFO PER 7/19/04:
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies. Inc.
1 Telcordia Drive
Piscataway, NJ 08854-3923
Email: [email protected]
Tel: (732) 699-6068
Fax: (732) 336-2336

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