Re: IMPORTANT -- Proposed change to Entity Sensor MIB

At 10:09 PM 10/8/2002 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

>>>>>> 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.

Actually, the Entity Sensor MIB is derived from the Cisco version,
which had been shipping for a few years before the ENTMIB WG started
on this MIB.


>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.

I agree that this should have been resolved before all the Last Calls
were completed.  I am not worried about setting a precedent of
being pragmatic regarding MIB issues. The prefix 'entPhySensor'
is actually more precise than 'entSensor', so this is not just
a change to work around tool deficiencies.  But I don't want to
delay the RFC by causing another IESG cycle.  I am hoping that
even though this change will cause lots of diffs, the IESG will
see that this is a very minor change that doesn't change any
semantics of any normative text.


>/js

Andy