Margaret.Wasserman | 5 Jan 22:41 2004
Picon

Change of Contact Information


[This note is cc:ed to many lists.  Please be careful with
replies.  Thanks.]

Hi All,

I have decided to leave Nokia to join a small company called
ThingMagic.  My new contact information will be:

Margaret Wasserman
VP of Development
ThingMagic
One Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142 USA
Work:  +1 (617)758-4136
Cell:  +1 (781)405-7464
margaret <at> thingmagic.com
http:\\www.thingmagic.com

In a vain attempt to control the IETF rumor mill:  I have 
enjoyed working at Nokia very much, and I believe that 
Nokia is a great company that does excellent work within
the IETF and elsewhere.  An unexpected opportunity arose 
to take a leadership role in a small, growing company, 
and it was just too good to refuse.  I plan to continue my 
IETF activities, with the full support of my new company.

My new e-mail address and cell phone number are already
operational, so please change your pointers ASAP.  My last 
day at Nokia will be tomorrow (Tuesday, January 6th) and
(Continue reading)

Sharon Chisholm | 6 Jan 14:35 2004

RE: Entity State MIB Issue Status

Hi

I submitted the update to this draft a couple of weeks ago, but my
submission was corrupted somehow. I resubmitted shortly after but have not
seen it yet. If it doesn't show up in the next couple days, I'll email it to
the list.

Having received no objections to the proposed resolutions, I have 'resolved'
all the issues in http://rt.psg.com (ietf, ietf). So far I think I'm finding
this tool useful, although it was annoying until I learned the trick that if
a 'submit' was taking too long stop it and try again. Otherwise you end up
with timeouts and you lose your form data and have to start again.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:10 AM
To: entmib <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Issue Status

Hi

The goal is to get the updated Entity State MIB out by the end of the week.

As the proposed resolutions to the following entstate issues have received
no objections, I will close them in rt.psg.com.

71, 72,73,74, 75, 76 and 78.

(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 8 Jan 16:33 2004
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.  This draft is a work item of the Entity MIB Working Group
of the IETF.

	Title		: Entity State MIB
	Author(s)	: S. Chisholm, D. Perkins
	Filename	: draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt
	Pages		: 17
	Date		: 2004-1-7
	
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
In particular, it describes extensions to the entity MIB to
provide information about the state of the entity.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-entmib-state-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

(Continue reading)

Margaret Wasserman | 9 Jan 14:25 2004

Entity State MIB Next Steps


Now that the newest version of the Entity State MIB is available,
the WG has a decision to make.  In my opinion, we have two
choices:

(1) We decide that the structure and objects defined in the
current draft are acceptable, and we send the current draft
to WG Last Call in order to identify and resolve final
issues.

(2) We decide that we want to change the structure or objects
defined in this MIB to make it simpler or more functional.

I would appreciate it if people would respond to this message
with their opinions, so that I can attempt to judge the consensus
of the WG on this issue.

Thanks,
Margaret
Sharon Chisholm | 9 Jan 14:48 2004

RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps

Hi

My vote is for 1), except if the current update resolves issues from the
previous working group last call do we need a second? There was substantial
rewrite, but no objects were changed. I could go either way.

I'm hoping that the more concise text in the latest version appeases the
concern that what the working group has come up with is too complicated.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret <at> thingmagic.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:26 AM
To: entmib <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps

Now that the newest version of the Entity State MIB is available, the WG has
a decision to make.  In my opinion, we have two
choices:

(1) We decide that the structure and objects defined in the current draft
are acceptable, and we send the current draft to WG Last Call in order to
identify and resolve final issues.

(2) We decide that we want to change the structure or objects defined in
this MIB to make it simpler or more functional.

I would appreciate it if people would respond to this message with their
opinions, so that I can attempt to judge the consensus of the WG on this
(Continue reading)

Margaret Wasserman | 11 Jan 15:38 2004

Proposed Milestone Update


Hi All,

The Entity MIB (entmib) WG currently has a long list of
milestones, some of which are duplicates of each other...
I am not quite sure what happened, but I think that one
of my earlier updates resulted in duplication, rather
than replacement.

What I would like to do is prune the entire list so that
it only lists these milestones:

Done    Publish Entity State MIB as a WG I-D
Feb 04  Submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard
Mar 04  Submit Entity State MIB to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Jun 04  Re-charter or shut-down the WG

Does that make sense to everyone?  Any questions about this?
Any concerns that we may not be able to meet these dates?

Thanks,
Margaret
Margaret Wasserman | 11 Jan 15:46 2004

RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps


Hi Sharon,

>My vote is for 1), except if the current update resolves issues from the
>previous working group last call do we need a second? There was substantial
>rewrite, but no objects were changed. I could go either way.

I realize that the objects haven't change, but enough of the text has
changed that I would like to have another WG Last Call before sending
it to the IESG, just to make sure that the new text has been well-reviewed.

>I'm hoping that the more concise text in the latest version appeases the
>concern that what the working group has come up with is too complicated.

I just finished reading the new version, and I think that it is
much simpler and clearer.  Thanks!  I would be happy to see us publish
the Entity State MIB in its current form.  What do others think?

Margaret
Subrahmanya Hegde | 11 Jan 16:48 2004
Picon

Re: Entity State MIB Next Steps

Hi
 a Minor Suggestion:

Instead of having these OID definitions:

-- Notifications

   entStateTraps      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 2 }
   entStateTrapPrefix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entStateTraps 0 }

We can have
 entStateNotifs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 0 }

and use 'entStateNotifs' in the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE

Reason we would like to avoid name 'Traps' is: Latest RFCs refer them
as Notifications

Subra

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>
> Now that the newest version of the Entity State MIB is available,
> the WG has a decision to make.  In my opinion, we have two
> choices:
>
> (1) We decide that the structure and objects defined in the
> current draft are acceptable, and we send the current draft
> to WG Last Call in order to identify and resolve final
(Continue reading)

Randy Presuhn | 12 Jan 04:12 2004
Picon

Re: Entity State MIB Next Steps

Hi -

> From: "Subrahmanya Hegde" <subrah <at> cisco.com>
> To: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret <at> thingmagic.com>
> Cc: <entmib <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 7:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
...
> Instead of having these OID definitions:
>
> -- Notifications
>
>    entStateTraps      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 2 }
>    entStateTrapPrefix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entStateTraps 0 }
>
>
> We can have
>  entStateNotifs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { entityStateMIB 0 }
>
> and use 'entStateNotifs' in the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE
>
> Reason we would like to avoid name 'Traps' is: Latest RFCs refer them
> as Notifications
...

This would also bring it into better alignment with the MIB review
guidelines.

Randy
(Continue reading)

Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 12 Jan 07:06 2004

RE: Entity State MIB Next Steps

I agree with 1) and including the proposal that we should go through a Last Call again. I do not feel that we had
consensus that this is the right balance between lack of complexity and useful functionality, and the WG
participants should have the formal opportunity to provide again their inputs.

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entmib-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:entmib-admin <at> ietf.org]On 
> Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: 09 January, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: entmib <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Entmib] Entity State MIB Next Steps
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> My vote is for 1), except if the current update resolves 
> issues from the
> previous working group last call do we need a second? There 
> was substantial
> rewrite, but no objects were changed. I could go either way.
> 
> I'm hoping that the more concise text in the latest version 
> appeases the
> concern that what the working group has come up with is too 
> complicated.
> 
> Sharon
(Continue reading)


Gmane