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

[stefan vallin <[e-mail]>]

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


> On 3 Dec 2018, at 08:51, Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]> 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