Re: Entity MIB v3

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:41:15PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
 
> >Also, I need examples for the entPhysicalUris object.
> >This object is too vague for me to provide any examples.
> >I also see no guidance for which types of physical
> >entities should provide a mfg date.  FRUs only?
> >More text is needed for both of these new objects.
> 
> Could one of the people who felt strongly that these objects should 
> be included in the Entity MIB update please respond to Andy's request 
> for more information?

I suggest to add language to entPhysicalMfgDate which says that there
is a default value in case the manufacturing date is unknown: 

	The value '0000000000000000'H is returned if the manufacturing
	date of the entity in unknown.

I don't think we need to constrain this object to FRUs. 

Regarding entPhysicalUris: This object was proposed to handle CLIE
codes and other things people may come up with to identify entities.
It would be nice if Kaj Tesink <[email protected]> could
start an ID which defines a URI namespace for CLIE codes. While
this might take some time and we do not want to depend on it, 
another source of examples might be OID URNs as defined in RFC 
3001, that is something like urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1 (I leave it to
your imagination to pick a suitable value for an example).
 
> If there is no one who care enough about these objects to do actual 
> work to finalize them, perhaps Andy should just leave them out and we 
> can get the Entity MIB update published?

I would love to see Kaj starting to write up the CLIE code URN spec
since this was the major driving force for this addition. I this
does not happen, then dropping these objects (even though I believe
we now have a viable solution) might be a logical conclusion.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany