Re: IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Entmib] IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB
> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:01:03 -0400
...
> This change was proposed because of our current object name
> overlap with Cisco's proprietary sensor MIB, which causes
> problems for anyone who tries to implement both MIBs on the
> same device and/or manage a device that includes both MIBs.

Only if they're using broken tools.  I think we should not
indulge in gyrations like this simply so folks can continue
using broken tools.

> Using the same object names (even though the module name
> is different) causes a problem for various tools that assume
> that object names will all be globally unique.
> 

Making this change would do no good.  It would support the
continued use of broken tools, which is arguable bad.

> Bert is checking with the IESG to determine whether the
> proposed object name changes would require the MIB to be
> re-cycled through the IESG, or whether they could be done
> as part of the RFC editing process.
> 
> Before we make any changes, though, we'd like to know if the
> group does or doesn't support making this change.  Choices
> are:
> 
> 	- Leave the MIB as-is.
> 	- Change the names only if it will not require
> 		re-submission to the IESG.
> 	- Change the names, even if re-submission to the
> 		IESG would be required.
> 
> Thoughts?
...

My choice would be to
Leave it as it is.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 [email protected]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------