Re: Mini WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-06.txt

[Failed to cc: entmib on this response the first time...]

Hi Juergen,

These changes all seem quite concrete and manageable.  Perhaps Andy
could make these changes in parallel with sending this MIB to the IESG
later this week.  Andy?

Margaret

>On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 07:50:17AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>>  Since this document has already been through WG Last Call several
>>  times, I just like to do a quick check that no new problems have been
>>  introduced as a result of the latest edits, then I will send this
>>  document on to the IESG for publication.
>>
>>  So, if you have any objection to this document being submitted to the
>>  IESG in its current form for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC,
>>  please send them to the [email protected] mailing list by Wednesday,
>>  January 19th.
>
>I support this document being submitted to the IESG. However, I found
>a few nits that probably should be addressed (personally I do not care
>when in the process):
>
>a) The description of entPhysicalMfgDate says '0000000000000000'H is
>    returned if the date is unknown. The text in section 2.12.1 says
>    that the object is not instantiated if the date is unknown.
>
>    It appears to me that entPhysicalFirmwareRev, entPhysicalSoftwareRev,
>    entPhysicalSerialNum, entPhysicalMfgName, and entPhysicalModelName
>    all return a zero-length string if the value is unknown so I think
>    the description is actually consistent with them.
>
>    Hence I propose the following change to section 2.12.1:
>
>    OLD
>
>      This object contains the date of manufacturing of the managed
>      entity.  If the manufacturing date is unknown or not supported
>      the object is not instantiated.
>
>    NEW
>
>      This object contains the date of manufacturing of the managed
>      entity. If the manufacturing date is unknown or not supported
>      the object is not instantiated. The special value
>      '0000000000000000'H may also be returned in this case.
>
>b) My smilint says the following:
>
>    ./ENTITY-MIB:90: warning: type `PhysicalIndex' has no format
>                              specification
>    ./ENTITY-MIB:104: warning: type `PhysicalIndexOrZero' has no format
>			      specification
>
>    I suggest to add DISPLAY-HINT "d" clauses to the TC definitions.
>
>c) If I understand the MIB review guidelines correctly, then we should
>    put the following into the IANA Considerations section:
>
>       The MIB module in this document uses the following IANA-assigned
>       OBJECT IDENTIFIER values recorded in the SMI Numbers registry:
>
>       Descriptor        OBJECT IDENTIFIER value
>       ----------        -----------------------
>       entityMIB         { mib-2 47 }
>
>       Editor's Note (to be removed prior to publication):  this draft
>       makes no additional requests of the IANA.
>
>    (I know that one can debate the utility of this but I do not want
>    to do this here.)
>
>/js
>
>--
>Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 
>Bremen, Germany