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

At 09:35 AM 1/18/2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>[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?

I'll get -07 done this week.
I need to figure out how to make nroff stop ending 
lines with a split hyphenated word (only ID-nit reported).


>Margaret

Andy



>>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Entmib mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib