Subject: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #325] AutoReply:

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:53:40 -0500

The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-325. The issue will be
considered closed with no changes made to the document, other than those
already identified with issue #306.

The MIB review guidelines (August 2003) show the following

         xxxMIB
         |
         +-- xxxNotifications(0)
         +-- xxxObjects(1)
         +-- xxxConformance(2)
             |
             +-- xxxCompliances(1)
             +-- xxxGroups(2)

The MIB currently defines, after we make the change identified in problem
#306

         entStateMIB
         |
         +-- entStateNotifications(0)
         +-- entStateObjects(1)
         +-- entStateConformance(2)
             |
             +-- entStateCompliances(1)
             +-- entStateroups(2)      

This is without making any further changes related to these specific
comments.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:38 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Subject: [psg.com #325] AutoReply:

<clip>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subrahmanya Hegde [[email-masked]]:

"As per the MIB convention : We should define a OID under 
'entStateObjects'
  and use that in the xxxTable.
For example:
   entStateObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 1}

add:
    entityState OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entStateObjects 1}
use this 'entityState'(or whatever else makes sense) for entStateTable 
in the mib

4. entStateConformance must be under { entityStateMIB 2}

3.  I think OID definition for 'entityStateGroups' is missing it should 
be
  entStateGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entStateConformance 2} "

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