Re: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: (with COMMENT)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 08 April 2019 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E059212006F; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id evK-eUuDaqBx; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D76C12004A; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 147EE1AE0399; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:54:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 13:54:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190408.135441.1084919238498793699.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: evyncke@cisco.com, noreply@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <155458648675.21847.15882795962444550355.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155458648675.21847.15882795962444550355.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/38ChjRwXSLuMseM1h45ePI-38uc>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?iso-8859-1?q?=C9ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?iso-8859-1?q?etf-ccamp-alarm-module-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:54:44 -0000

Hi,

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Easy to read and well-thought except for "shelving" alarms, it took me a while
> to understand that it was like "stashing" ;-)

This term was discussed by the WG, but since it is commonly used in
the alarm industry, we kept it.

> Section 3.4, may I assume that the document fixes the problem "X.733 and
> especially 3GPP were not really clear on this point." ?

Yes.

> Perhaps did I miss the part where the alarm system could also fails: what
> alarm? status? does it generate? Or is it out of scope?

This document doesn't define any specific alarm types, so in that
sense this is out of scope.

> *minor NITS*
> Section 1 s/north-bound/northbound/ ?

Fixed!



/martin & stefan