Subject: [eman] battery mib -05 section 7.5: augment or not augment?

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 02:28:53 +0200

Hi,

this is what it says:

  7.5.  Entity MIB augmentation

     Should the batteryTable augment the entPhysicalTable from the Entity
     MIB?

What will be the answer to this? Is the batteryTable going to augment
the new ENTITY-MIB (thus you require a minimal ENTITY-MIB
implementation) or do you keep the current "loose" binding?

/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: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 03:32:29 +0200

Hi,

Reading the Entity MIB v4, it does not look like this helps us a lot
with the Battery MIB.

We use the "loose" binding in the current draft in order to avoid
the need to implement the complex Entity MIB v3 in cases where 
this is not needed.  If we make the Entity MIB v4 mandatory to 
implement, we only have solved this issue for "constrained devices". 

Any regular (non-constrained) device (Laptop, touchpad, etc., that 
has a battery to be monitored, still would have to have a complex
Entity MIB implementation because it cannot use the new simple 
entity4CRCompliance that by its definition is limited to 
"constrained devices":
>     "The compliance statement for SNMP entities that implement
>     version 4 of the Entity MIB on devices with constrained
>     resources."
If the Entity MIB v4 remains like this, I would definitely prefer that the 
Battery MIB keeps its current loose binding to the entity MIB, which 
is fine and does not seem to create any problem.

Thanks,
    Juergen Q.

Am 02.08.2012 um 02:28 schrieb Juergen Schoenwaelder:

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