RE: Response to comments on OAM doc

I would personally prefer to have the OAM MIB name be DOT3 rather than
EFM, for two reasons:

1) The other non-PHY specific functions seem to be named this way.  
2) I already made the change in a working draft:)

Not a strong feeling by any means, but it seems more appropriate.  

- Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:36 PM
> To: David T. Perkins; [email protected]
> Cc: Matt Squire
> Subject: RE: Response to comments on OAM doc
> 
> (speaking as a contributor)
> 
> Grrrrr ... I did not want to enter into a naming discussion at this
> stage, but it looks like we got into one anyway.
> 
> There is no overall convention for names of hubmib MIB modules to be
> prefixed by DOT3. If there is a consistency to be reached, I would
> rather aim all EFM MIB module names to be prefixed by EFM.
> 
> Thus, the module names I would recommend to be used in the four
> documents are:
> 
> EFM-OAM-MIB
> EFM-CU-MIB
> EFM-EPON-MIB
> EFM-EPON-DEVICE-MIB
> 
> The descriptors associated with the module identity and the other
> descriptors of MIB objects within the MIB modules should be a lower
case
> version of the module name prefix without hyphenation of course, as
> recommended in Annex C of RFC 4181.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]]
> >
> > 6.   MIB Definition
> >
> >   EFM-COMMON-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
> >
> > ]] This module name doesn't follow the naming conventions
> > ]] in the [MIBguidelines] document. However, I can't determine
> > ]] if it should be DOT3-OAM-MIB, or "EFM-OAM-MIB".
> >
> > MBS: It should be DOT3-OAM-MIB to me, so that's what I'll
> > change it to.
> >
> >   <<text deleted>>
> >
> >      efmOamMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
> >
> > ]] Not sure if should be efmOamMIB or dot3OamMIB
> >
> > MBS: Changed to dot3OamMIB
> >
> >