Re: entPhysicalUris object wrap-up

At 01:27 PM 12/8/2004, David T. Perkins wrote:
>HI,
>
>I somehow missed the motivating reasons to go from a 
>an object that can provide a alternative identification
>to an object that supports only CLEI codes.

IMO, standard objects add value by providing common, well-defined 
semantics.  A list of undefined, unconstrained "alternate identifiers"
doesn't meet this criteria.  If the DESCRIPTION clause somehow 
constrained (and guided) implementations with a finite set of
alternatives, that would be fine.  Rationale for each alternative 
would need to be documented as well.  I strongly oppose doing
all this "alternative identifier" work as part of the 2737 update, 
because it isn't well-defined yet.

Andy



>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> >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.
>> 
>Regards,
>/david t. perkins
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib