RE: Entity MIB v3

I am confused. Did not the WG decide to proceed with the Definitions of Entity Manufacturing and URN Managed Objects as an Informational, based upon Kaj's individual submission http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-01.txt? 

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>