Re: [CCAMP] Review of alarm-module-06

stefan vallin <stefan@wallan.se> Mon, 03 December 2018 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan@wallan.se>
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 7EAA6130E19 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 01:44:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wallan-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 xtYeDXu6P7V7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 01:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3AD8130DE2 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 01:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id k19-v6so10690841lji.11 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 01:43:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wallan-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Kj7pIUFf5EgErJHAgJMOV0hC8K5zmS+16vqrjfyRan4=; b=kIcyAE8xYu0wy9rnXG8RbMvtzdpLF5qunJwRodSq67stP9a0PYjuy5tVajPkVHgwkz lCbW6LYLvcrXTywOquCgnFb5b3VTZIWuxpwRB+YLI3oDh8q3DRDm8CzcjP7A9+ItqbNz f7hkPbAGxgXWDliwohjGmaPeOM45kK/ZMcIVMUGk7nto+f8seJgklMnXaJTIJ4z8wYaf HMnw9ow9+TvgPMoDwVlvZUGNWGSogqxPAQlHnsI2fw4RMC/lAybvaAYznwZOPVn40ANl 7v6Kmaefwsft6c4pYtIulVj9pAuivZYpICNptgKe8eGYdK5AZPIOnWG8S3YYq22AJ3hS 4okA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Kj7pIUFf5EgErJHAgJMOV0hC8K5zmS+16vqrjfyRan4=; b=FqbTIYGcwCnEE/ql3WFijnfzEShZQA4/ZhAAhCQyRcAzChcH6RNPEl66JyQ7rj8Ev/ HTRdOcIYeZZXn7m0nnjHaQykX7XBqfTxkqTVIFKC0wI8kwwAdVwVZrh+BesLQ95mN7WN HZ7xDpi1fXmDfinMK9hVR9fpLr+Ktkb5HdrDUGlL+f4ibR9a9uoMb89VqpF85dv7ubPr /n/8mOOW0y4eLvylNP3DdWjoiy8+SbzjebQ5buhIOd+1ImmE7l6QP3e2fDasFFIBY4Ic ev+iJooVi/lh0G/fb7MXxquiRqXcbp3xRWnSgoH77H4o0hNZ76BVFmY1hYsQFAYulLAP HFKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY9k62b0FoTSpoDNW6HDZbvz8PheRhjGn1rWswjccjc2uz2IIq3 t9Y2aItH1rUlyPMF9myJxEpo6VGyPx0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UvWPWBUwwxFBWEIaozxtcisw+RPnkPjK1Ni7PRCTPyA7aY0TtuHDaIntpUVxx+dL99PXzrGA==
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9849:: with SMTP id e9-v6mr9477958ljj.9.1543830237776; Mon, 03 Dec 2018 01:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.55] ([195.234.15.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o5-v6sm2371624ljh.75.2018.12.03.01.43.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Dec 2018 01:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: stefan vallin <stefan@wallan.se>
In-Reply-To: <8cf0b0b5-93ac-ccdd-1a13-4d107ce7cb5d@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:43:55 +0100
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <509A6602-5FFB-4403-8B39-24535FAF477E@wallan.se>
References: <41cfebeb-0e81-838a-e3e1-9aaac3fea947@ericsson.com> <E8A526FA-19A6-4AC9-B612-CEB2B044EB24@wallan.se> <a7f2d666-8a9e-fc9d-cfca-722d258b48f5@ericsson.com> <CD8F1007-4B76-4ED4-B47F-958EDC645005@wallan.se> <8cf0b0b5-93ac-ccdd-1a13-4d107ce7cb5d@nokia.com>
To: "Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <yves.beauville@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ApwOOW55-5hpRrkccQ5Yj-G4d1E>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Review of alarm-module-06
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, 03 Dec 2018 09:44:01 -0000

Hi Yves!
Oops, thanks for catching this!
We will fix
br Stefan


> On 3 Dec 2018, at 08:51, Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <yves.beauville@nokia.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> I am very happy with the outcome of the reviews of the alarm module. I fully support it.
> 
> I have one comment though, hopefully easy to address.
> 
> I have noticed an inconsistency with X.733. In section 8.1.2.3, Perceived severity, of the CCITT specification, the following is documented:
> 
> >> Those severity levels which represent service affecting conditions ordered from most severe to least severe are Critical, Major, Minor and Warning
> 
> In the alarm-module-06, the type 'severity' is defined as below (omitting the descriptions):
>      typedef severity {
>        type enumeration {
>          enum indeterminate {
>            value 2;
>          }
>          enum minor {
>            value 3;
>          }
>          enum warning {
>            value 4;
>          }
>          enum major {
>            value 5;
>          }
>          enum critical {
>            value 6;
>        }
> The enum value provided for 'minor' and 'warning' is not consistent with the severity ordering defined in X.733.
> 
> The severity order is relevant in the IETF model when using severity filters with 'above' or 'below' criteria.
> 
> Should we swap the order (and enum values) of 'minor' and 'warning' in the above type definition?
> 
> Thanks
> Yves