Re: entPhysicalUris object wrap-up

Margaret Wasserman <[email protected]> Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:24:15 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.entmib
Message-ID <p06200729bddcf64d2d89@[192.168.2.2]>
>I propose that this object be changed back to entPhysicalClei.
>It should contain the empty string (for none) or a URI
>string conforming to the CLEI URN specification (from Kaj).
>If we think of other required semantics in the future,
>we can add new objects then.

This makes sense to me if we can quickly, easily resolve the reference issues.

Otherwise, I think we should just remove the object and let others 
add it as an "augments" if/when the proposed contents are 
well-defined.

>2) references
>
>As per Bert's comments, the citation to RFC 2396 will be
>removed from the DESCRIPTION clause, since it is redundant.
>Should this be changed to point to the CLEI URN specification,
>or just add another document to the REFERENCE clause?
>Where else should this spec be cited in the document?
>There are normative references, so how long will the
>Entity MIB be held up waiting for the CLEI URN RFC?

If we pursue this choice, I think that the CLEI URN document needs to 
be a normative reference.  Kaj submitted a draft, but I don't know 
what shape it is in and/or whether Bert is willing to either: (1) 
allow this group to take on that document, or (2) move it forward as 
an individual submission.  How close do folks think it is to ready 
for publication?  Has a MIB doctor reviewed it?  Bert, do you have 
any thoughts?

>3) conformance
>
>Currently the new OBJECT-GROUP (entityPhysical3Group)
>is in the MANDATORY-GROUPS clause.  If both objects
>allow for null values, then this should not be a problem.

Okay.

>4) examples
>
>I don't really have time (or enough info) to fill in the
>examples in section 4, but I know somebody will eventually
>ask about this before RFC publication.  I would really
>appreciate some help updating the examples.  (I need to
>add an example for entPhysicalClass==cpu(12) as well.)
>Any volunteers? (4.1 and 4.2 can be done independently)
>I would like to get this over with now ;-)

Yes.  It would be good to get this finished, so volunteer would be appreciated.

Margaret