Re: IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> The question is if anybody has a real technical or pragmatic
Bert> objection to changing the name from entSensor... to
Bert> entPhySensor,

Bert> If the sensors are indeed for physical entities, then the name
Bert> change makes sense. If it at the same time helps an existing
Bert> implementation (which helped us do this MIB reasonably fast),
Bert> then that may be looked at a nice by-product.

Personally, I in fact do not care too much whether these labels change
or not. In fact, if Cisco whould have picked names that do not clash
in the first place, nobody would have raised an issue.

On the other hand, I am a bit concerned how much this might create a
precedence. Changing descriptors whenever someone claims that there is
a clash with a proprietary MIB just does not work.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>