Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-state-05.txt
...
> a) Section says:
>
>      Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a
>      specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare
>      capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the
>      user is equivalent to an entity, so this term is substituted. This
>      state refers to the ability of the entity to service other entities
>      within its containment hierarchy.
>
>    I think this can be made shorter without loosing significance:
>
>      Usage state indicates whether or not the entity is in use at a
>      specific instance, and if so, whether or not it currently has spare
>      capacity to serve additional users. In the context of this MIB, the
>      usage state refers to the ability of an entity to service other
>      entities within its containment hierarchy.
>
>    But I do not feel strongly about this change. (I just found the
>    term substitution a bit awkward.)

I think the idea was to avoid precluding its use in cases where
there were users other than entities within its containment hierarchy,
but I agree that the original wording is awkward.

> b) I suggest to replace 'status' with 'states' in the sentence below:
>
>      In addition to those alarm status defined in
>      X.731 [X.731], warning and indeterminate status are also defined to
>      provide a more complete mapping to the Alarm MIB [Alarm-MIB].
...

However, X.731 makes a distinction between "states" and "status".
My very old copy (1991) in clause 8.1.2 ("Status attributes") describes
the distinction this way:

   The status attributes are provided to qualify the Operational, Usage
   and/or Administrative state attributes.

Randy