Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:06:45 -0400

Margaret, thanks for your note.

Bert, see attached message from Margaret.

the original thread is attached as well.

as you know on this issue there were three issues raised:

1. document title is too vague

2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement

3. acceptance as work item

on (1): seems resolvable to all satisfaction

on (2): there has been some back&forth on this one; Juergen

and Dave P thought that
a URN approach may work best;

Dave P. will provide a
strawman (due to him being sick

last week this has been
delayed).

on (3): Margaret refers to you given the state of the entmib WG.

all I can add is that
there have been a handful of

expressions of support,
and no objections (comments

have focused on (1) and
(2) instead).

your guidance on how to carry this forward is appreciated,

kaj

X-Sender: [email-masked]

Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:09:45 -0400

To: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.2(snapshot 20021217) (thumper)

X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS - amavis-milter
(http://www.amavis.org/)

Hi Kaj,

I'm sorry that I didn't answer this message sooner.  I was on
vacation in mid-April, and I'm only catching up now.

3. acceptance as work item

since the original proposal i've seen several supporting comments

but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge

The Entity MIB WG charter does not currently include this work, so we
could not accept this document as a work item without a charter
update.

There are at least two concerns about updating the Entity MIB WG charter
to include this item:

1) The WG has not been timely in completing our current work.

2) I was appointed to the IESG last July, and it is not considered a good
idea for IESG members to run WGs.  I stayed on as entmib WG chair
because we were expected to complete our work within a few months (not
that things have gone exactly as planned...). If the life of the WG will
be extended by new work items, it will be necessary for Bert to identify
and appoint a new chair.

So, if you want to pursue this work in the IETF, you should talk to Bert
Wijnen about the best way to do that.  In the meantime, the only
chartered work items for the entmib WG are completing the Entity State
MIB and getting the Entity MIB promoted to Draft Standard.

Margaret

ORGINAL THREAD:

===========================================================

X-Sender: [email-masked]

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:01:31 -0400

To: [email-masked]

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>

Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.2(snapshot 20021217) (thumper)

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on

ietf-mx.ietf.org

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_30_40,

HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY,NO_OBLIGATION

autolearn=no version=2.60

Sender: [email-masked]

X-BeenThere: [email-masked]

X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12

List-Unsubscribe:
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>,

<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>

List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>

List-Post:
<mailto:[email-masked]>

List-Help:
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>

List-Subscribe:
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>,

<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>

At 03:34 PM 4/9/2004 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:

Hi,

Yes, we have a need for this MIB. Any chance of getting this done?

i think the following issues have been raised:

1. document title is too vague

2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement

3. acceptance as work item

1. document title is too vague:

current proposed title is:

Definitions of Supplemental Entity Managed Objects

the current contents of the MIB module is only two objects

- manufacturing date

- additional info (an opaque object with one currently identified

application)

i proposed this title to be

a) in line with similar documentation techniques in the past

b) to be compatible with possible extensions in the future

given the two current objects, and that one of them is opaque,

it is hard to be very specific. Dan suggested something like:

'Entity MIB Extensions for manufacturing date and physical module
identification'

or perhaps:

Extensions to entPhysicalTable of the Entity MIB

(more precise but still not very illuminating)

I suggest we go with Dan's proposal.

2. opaque object is cumbersome to implement.

the suggested construct was based on neat suggestions by Dave

and was meant to accommodate several concerns and also

allow flexibility. but several comments pointed out that

this may be too cumbersome to implement. i attach the

original proposal which was an object dedicated to CLEI.

note that my original question was posed in the context of

extending the Entity MIB directly instead of creating a separate

document.

any strong feelings against going back to the original? Dave?

3. acceptance as work item

since the original proposal i've seen several supporting comments

but i leave this to the WG chair and AD to gauge

kaj

---snip from initial
posting-------------------------------------------------

=============================================================

new objects:

entPhysicalCLIECode OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX SnmpAdminString (SIZE (0..10))

MAX-ACCESS read-write

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"The CLIE Code for the physical entity. If a CLIE Code

is unknown or non-existent, the entPhysicalCLIECode will

be set to a zero-length string instead."

::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }

REFERENCE "TCIF-02-004, Guideline for data elements

included in the Management Information Base,

Telecommunications Industry Forum (TCIF), 09/11/2002.

ANSI T1.213-2001, Coded identification of equipment entities

of the North American telecommunications system for

information exchange, ANSI.

ANSI T1.213a-2001, Supplement to T1.213-2001,

Coded identification of equipment entities of the North

American telecommunications system for information exchange,

to correct the representation of the Basic Code in

Figure B.1, ANSI."

entPhysicalMfgDate OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX DateAndTime

MAX-ACCESS read-only

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

"The manufacturing date for the physical entity."

::= { entPhysicalEntry xx }

-faye

-----Original Message-----

From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Kaj Tesink

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:38 AM

To: Sharon Chisholm; [email-masked]

Subject: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

hi Sharon,

At 12:56 PM 4/1/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

hi

Where are we in this discussion? Have we decided whether the working
group

wants to take this on?

i think that question is still pending;

we asked for input and expressions of interest well before the

last ietf meeting but there has not been much traffic on this

since that request. so let me repeat the request for input on this
spec:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplmib-00.txt

This is a requirement I've heard bounced around a few
times so I think this

is worth trying to address, but like Dan I have a few concerns with some

aspects of the proposed solution. As he has mentioned, the title is not

sufficiently descriptive. In addition, I think the data types might be
too

opaque to be useful.

as per my comments based on Dan's note, there were

some good reasons for the high level title, but

i'd be open to other suggestions.

as for the opaque object, the history is that

the initial proposal based on an octet string

syntax invoked a discussion about flexibility

and some other aspects, and resulted in a proposal

by Dave for the current opaque construct, although

some other comments expressed reservations (i believe

by Juergen and Dan).

i'm willing to go with whatever the rough consensus

dictates.

kaj

Sharon

-----Original Message-----

From: Kaj Tesink
[mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:25 AM

To: [email-masked]

Subject: RE: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

Hi Dan,

At 10:03 PM 2/10/2004 +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

>Kaj,

>I was among the ones who supported doing this work. I did not change
my

>mind.

>Two comments:

>1. I would like the title of the document to be more explicit about

>what

>is really provided by this MIB. 'Supplemental' is really too generic
a

>title - what about something like 'Entity MIB Extensions for
manufacturing

>and physical modules identification'?

I see what you're trying to do. While this would more accurately reflect
the

content, there is the issue of future compatibility. The problem with

adding

new objects to MIBs over time is that

a) either you add to the original spec; but this means there's a problem

with advancing the spec over time

b) or you define supplemental specs; the problem here is that you dont
want

all sorts of miblets around; you want to minimize the number So, similar

as what we did for ATM, and attempted for DS1s, the tactic was to use
this

generic title, so that additional functions could still be added for a

while. I agree its not perfect. I also thought that in previous

discussions

there were some thoughts about some additional functions(?).

>2. Some of the concerns expressed in the meeting (not by me) were

>related

>to the availability and the proprietary nature of the CLEI codes. Can
you

>comment on these? Are the documents mentioned in the REFERENCE clause
of

>the cleiCode object freely available?

You're right, some of that did come up before.

My understanding is the following:

- the references point to documents by different standards groups,

and i think are available for a small fee at
www.atis.org

- CLEI codes are defined in those standards;

Telcordia is the registrar to obtain an actual code

In previous discussion it was pointed out that

while CLEIs are in wide use, there is no obligation to

use them; I've tried to reflect that in the draft

in two ways: (a) use an opaque object instead of a dedicated object as

proposed by Dave, and (b) language for the case that the whole thing (no

CLEI nor any other application of the object) is not supported.

Kaj

>Thanks and Regards,

>Dan

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf

> > Of Kaj Tesink

> > Sent: 10 February, 2004 6:48 PM

> > To: [email-masked]

> > Subject: Fwd: [Entmib] Re: Entity mib support for tcif

> > all,

> > the draft i sent to the list last week is now available at

> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tesink-entity-supplm

> > ib-00.txt

> > pl note that the file name was changed (my error).

> > in order to move this forward the WG would need

> > to accept this as a formal work item.

> > so we'd appreciate comments on

> > a) whether there is support/objection to do this work

> > b) any technical comments

> > while the minneapolis meeting already indicated some tentative

> > support, restating this or any new/additional views would be helpful

> > kaj

> > >X-Sender: [email-masked]

> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2

> > >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:06:54 -0500

> > >To: [email-masked]

> > >From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>

> > >all,

> > >attached is the supplemental entity miblet

> > >discussed a while ago, supporting

> > >- manufacturing date

> > >- additional entity info

> > >the latter uses the method proposed by dave

> > >to convey information such as CLEIs.

> > >i do recall that there were some different

> > >views on whether to use an opaque encoding

> > >method versus using a dedicated object, but

> > >please read it over and provide any comments.

> > >kaj

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink

Telcordia Technologies. Inc.

331 Newman Springs Road

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Email: [email-masked]

Tel: (732) 758-5254

Fax: (732) 758-4177

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

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

---

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:06:45 -0400

and Dave P thought that

Dave P. will provide a

last week this has been
delayed).

all I can add is that

expressions of support,

have focused on (1) and
(2) instead).

kaj

Hi Kaj,

Margaret

ORGINAL THREAD:

To: [email-masked]

ietf-mx.ietf.org

List-Unsubscribe:

List-Post:
<mailto:[email-masked]>

List-Help:

List-Subscribe:

Hi,

- manufacturing date

application)

or perhaps:

document.

kaj

---snip from initial

new objects:

MAX-ACCESS read-write

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

Figure B.1, ANSI."

SYNTAX DateAndTime

MAX-ACCESS read-only

STATUS current

DESCRIPTION

-faye

-----Original Message-----

hi Sharon,

hi

wants to take this on?

opaque to be useful.

by Juergen and Dan).

dictates.

kaj

Sharon

-----Original Message-----

From: Kaj Tesink

To: [email-masked]

Hi Dan,

my

a

manufacturing

adding

discussions

you

of

Kaj

Kaj Tesink

331 Newman Springs Road

Red Bank, NJ 07701

Tel: (732) 758-5254

Fax: (732) 758-4177