RE: Adding PhysicalIndex/PhysicalIndexOrZero to guidelines Appendix D

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Maybe we can add text that states that this is the initial list,
but that the most up-to-date and current list is provided
at the mib-guidelines oe mib-rewview-guidelines web page 
(where we already propose to put ptrs to compilers and their usage).
something aka:
   www.ops.ietf.org/mib-review-guidelines.html
(still to be created)

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 22 juli 2003 2:24
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Adding PhysicalIndex/PhysicalIndexOrZero to 
> guidelines Appendix
> D
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>