Subject: [eman] Entity MIBv4?

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 16:50:45 +0200

Hi MIB Doctors,

I am not sure how many of you follow the EMAN WG which has a chartered
item for a Power and Energy Monitoring MIB -
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-02.txt. One
of the issue they are encountering is the need to support a small subset
of objects from the Entity MIB composed of entPhysicalIndex,
entPhysicalName and entPhysicalUris (which in their case is read-only
and limited size). Full support of the Entity MIB as per RFC 4133 may
happen but they estimate it would be an extra-load for the devices
reporting power and energy information. A proposal was made to define
the subset of objects they need as a module compliance for small energy
reporting devices to be defined for the Entity MIB (see slides 8 and 9
in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-eman-3.pdf). 

My question is whether you see such a solution causing any problem? 
Is it worth a v4 for the Entity MIB, or could it be done differently? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:18:13 +0200

> Is it worth a v4 for the Entity MIB, or could it be done differently? 

Well, the IMHO biggest reason to spin the Entity MIB is to move the
physical class TC to IANA. EMAN also deals with batteries that there
is no proper physical class for it.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:21:08 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 6:18 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: MIB Doctors; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [eman] Entity MIBv4?
> 

[[DR]] Right, this too. 

However, this would not be controversial (I believe) while the proposal
to define a compliance for a small subset of objects may raise some
brows. 

Dan

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:39:04 +0200

> to define a compliance for a small subset of objects may raise some

WHy would that raise brows? I think it is fine to define one
more (limited) module compliance, as long as you are clear
about what it is, what it is useful for and possibly some statements
as to which environments would be the appropriate place for them
(ala sort of a Applicabilty Statement; which could be in the
DESCRIPTION clause I would think).

Bert

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:00:55 +0200

Hi Dan,

The most important reason to have an ENTITY-MIB v4 is the addition of a 
proper read-only UUID, as opposed to using the entPhysicalUris, or even 
defining an EMAN specific UUID.
So I support this work.

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>
>

---

From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 03:35:05 -0500

Thanks Dan. 

As you have suggested some of the desirable features for ENTITY MIB V4
from an EMAN point of view shall be 

 -  entPhysicalClass to be an IANA controlled list   
 -  is it possible to have a smaller set of ENTITY MIB objects for
possible compliance with  ENTITY-MIB 
 -  entPhysicalUris to be read-only object 
         -  representation of UUID compliant with rfc 4122 ? 

Thanks
Mouli

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 8:21 PM
To: MIB Doctors
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [eman] Entity MIBv4?

Hi MIB Doctors,

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:54:06 +0200

> possible compliance with  ENTITY-MIB 

You can have an additional conformance statement and compliance is
to a conformance statement not the ENTITY-MIB.

>  -  entPhysicalUris to be read-only object 

That won't happen; you can have a complaince statement that does not
require writable implementation.

>          -  representation of UUID compliant with rfc 4122 ? 

Not 100% sure what this means. entPhysicalUris can contain an RFC 4122
UUID URN. Perhaps you are asking for a separate entPhysicalUuid
object. If so, I am not sure you need the extra URN verbosity.

/js

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:02:15 +0200

See in-line. 

Regards,

Dan

> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:54 AM
> To: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); MIB Doctors; [email-masked]
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 03:35:05AM -0500, Mouli Chandramouli
(moulchan)
> wrote:

[[DR]] Exactly.

> require writable implementation.

[[DR]] Of course. Other classes of entities will use the compliance
statement(s) that requires read-write access

> object. If so, I am not sure you need the extra URN verbosity.
[[DR]] This is the only issue that seems open in my view - meaning the
slides and discussions at the meeting did not seem to lead to a
conclusion. Do we expect cases where both a RFC 4122 compliant UUID
representation and also another entPhysicalUri format will be needed?

Dan

---

From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:42:11 -0500

Thanks. Replies inline. 

Mouli

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:32 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)
Cc: MIB Doctors; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [eman] Entity MIBv4?

See in-line. 

Regards,

Dan

(moulchan)
> to a conformance statement not the ENTITY-MIB.

[[DR]] Exactly.
[ycm] OK. A clarification from a novice. Those conformance statements
should included in the ENTITY-MIB conformance section ? 

[ycm] OK

[ycm] Two possible approaches for UUID representation as given in the
mailing list and slides 
[ycm] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/current/msg01287.html

Dan

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:51:40 +0200

Hi,

See in-line. 

Regards,

Dan

> From: Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:42 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > As you have suggested some of the desirable features for ENTITY
MIB
> > V4

[[DR]] Yes, they are added to the existing conformance clauses. 

> [ycm] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/current/msg01287.html
[[DR]] So, are you arguing that there is a need for a separate object?

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:26:36 +0200

> [ycm] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/current/msg01287.html

The question is whether it is wise to encode a UUID, which is
essentially 16 binary octets, in a representation that requires 45
octets. I am pretty optimistic that a DISPLAY-HINT definition can be
provided that renders 16 binary octets into something like
"f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6".

/js