Adding PhysicalIndex/PhysicalIndexOrZero to guidelines Appendix D

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> JS> l) I suggest that we add PhysicalIndex and PhysicalIndexOrZero
> JS>    to the TCs listed in Appendix D.
> 
> Can you tell me what MIB module these appear in, and which RFC I
> should reference?

If there was a response to this question I missed it so I did my own
legwork.

Both of these TCs reside in the ENTITY-MIB.

PhysicalIndex first appeared in the initial version of the MIB
module in RFC 2037;  the definition is unchanged (apart from an
editorial clarification) in the most recently published ENTITY-MIB
revision in RFC 2737;  and the most recent definition, which is in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-v3-01.txt,
changes the base type from INTEGER (1..2147483647) to Integer32
(1..2147483647).

PhysicalIndexOrZero, on the other hand, appears only in the draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-v3-01.txt, and
if I add it I will have a normative reference to a document that is
not yet approved for publication (although it is due for WG last
call soon).

Because of the normative reference problem, and because the only
places other than the ENTITY-MIB where these TCs are used are RFC
2613 (SMON), RFC 2922 (PTOPO-MIB), and RFC 3433 (ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB),
I am VERY reluctant to make these additions to the list of "Commonly
Used Textual Conventions" in Appendix D.  Can we do without them?

Mike