Re: entPhysicalUris object wrap-up

Hi All,

>At 06:27 PM 12/8/2004, David T. Perkins wrote:
>>4) This issue has been discussed many times. As was pointed out
>>    by Kaj in an earlier message, the approach choosen was the
>>    best solution and was acceptable to all on the WG mailing
>>    list. I don't believe that it is fair to undo what was
>>    hammered out over a long period of time where:
>>    a) it was demonstrated that use of an
>>       "alternative identification" scheme was needed
>>       and provided value at little cost.
>>    b) the scheme was neutral
>>    c) the scheme provided support for multiple competing
>>       alternative identifications (limited only by the size
>>       of the object)
>>    d) the cost to support a "non implementation" was next
>>       to nothing
>
>I missed all this on the mailing list.
>I'll let the WG Chair decide, and I'll wait
>on any edits.

Kaj's document was never a WG document and, IMO, the Entity MIB WG 
did not make any official decisions about these objects before we 
decided to add them to the Entity MIB.  I know that a few people used 
the Entity MIB mailing list to discuss Kaj's personal submission, and 
I thought that was fine.  But, I didn't track the discussion closely 
enough to have a mental record of it, and no official consensus calls 
were made about it.

Personally, I agree with Andy that it is a bit lame to have an 
undiscriminated, unformatted, loosely specified string in the middle 
of this MIB.   How are applications supposed to know that this 
contains?  Would it be possible to compare these strings?  Use them 
as URLs?  Or do anything with them besides just display them on a 
screen?

I am not actually religious about this, though.  So, if that's what 
the WG thinks is the best way to represent this object, so be it.

Margaret