Subject: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #328] AutoReply: Containment Hierach and entPhysical Containedin

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:44:44 -0500

The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-328. The issue 
will be considered closed pending the proposed edit being done.

In the various object definitions replace phrases like

"as defined by a value of
               entPhysicalContainedIn that references this entity"

With one like

"as defined by the entPhysicalContainedIn object."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Subject: [psg.com #328] AutoReply: Containment Hierach and
entPhysicalContainedin
<clip>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juergen Schoenwaelder [[email-masked]]

"5) Several description clauses refer to "entities within its
   containment hierarchy" followed by a sentence which limits this to
   the entities "having a value of entPhysicalContainedIn that refers
   to this entity". This somehow excludes transitive containment. Is
   this by intention or accident? I mean, if I have C contained in B
   contained in A, then A still provides indirect service to C."

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:35:18 +0100

> "as defined by the entPhysicalContainedIn object."

So this is not generally transitive? I like Dave Perkin's suggestion
on this issue.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:35:18 +0100

/js