Re: CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation

HI,

The below sounds like a good suggestion to me.

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.
>
>/js
Regards,
/david t. perkins