Re: CONSENSUS CHECK: Undo entAliasMapping deprecation

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, 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.

Let me add my voice to those supporting this idea.

Mike Heard