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