Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-01, Missing Alarm Attributes

stefan vallin <stefan@wallan.se> Tue, 03 July 2018 12:18 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 B5B83130E84 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 05:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] 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 0nANfp7GVykk for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 05:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 0ADEC130E37 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 05:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id l16-v6so1424679lfc.13 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 05:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=bk/ReMRv48Bq+QpS5uU4vFPI1I2x7Q7eybnZGXmyBcE=; b=V8MHULtF2Z4x5u37oZ4WC8g75pcSeGDKi6PFszlhPLIWZZfER7ybIwNxTuPwL5a3pr AUUpy1pUO2/BockQb11260D0Ahk8bRKG2r8XClt8SkuL8qtUinVy6fRKkhj/KXQ/YY2j RhRF/DHFaaKPor/7R9Mz6tQ1b/jOrDz+U0Wy67i5I0J6DtugR/Gu4cVVL/W0lEZHHuUR /n0Fr52+oaV+5GE70X4aFZoD1RtMhnMTOFOE3dWvoZfvxbfYPya9Cj7x3HEwHZfIU1zN z9Riyy92wtKPVcNaAHApOme7fjd4Q5MIkhnJLtgPE+YJwNXB7Kpj6N/67c3lRVcXTCK9 OExA==
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=bk/ReMRv48Bq+QpS5uU4vFPI1I2x7Q7eybnZGXmyBcE=; b=QMmf471aSVffE5q5PhO+HFRBaetKWJWQyj9tQ87siCbXPnG5+dzQMWUuInFksby8+a Rf4etoCO+EEAHbZ8EdtKnT7ZB0mlNtPHpgT8LdiB0YsP40CWO/bMFp8y1EogibhPf4aw Uyj/M52GEPKaFsh9QQmf9OOJF//9tGVNpLDvSa5hNrCjw1Zk6eH4fxw3jUSqKCGotZKv t1XgFnTiU6lLjDIuqN9sCvRZssHLTdpLezUGPhrU9S0BLtjLMhVljPeGdlVo3Ihdh+qm uvFUoku44hHtprp+rPe0Oud5RA1Qyn6z3v3MJpSUhNcp5rQl2H/W8Y74XL9TF0yNacK3 lS3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0/ZT5mNuocJhhHmPEMueH76/l8TMxM6gbjLbduq+AdqGdHGC1M eo36UPngbMoegVTncHcQXZJ8J/T6k+4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpd52/peXTWDCShBvcKYsUCMRIH7R/fUqTN24gS1sg7cOtfvMMq2VbefI1h3J2T2Fv76bcqxKg==
X-Received: by 2002:a19:501e:: with SMTP id e30-v6mr18813910lfb.71.1530620300309; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 05:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.8.50] ([195.234.15.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c3-v6sm156775lja.22.2018.07.03.05.18.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jul 2018 05:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: stefan vallin <stefan@wallan.se>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR05MB443619F97B44C1B5EB816F159C4F0@BN7PR05MB4436.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 14:18:18 +0200
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4AAD536D-7AD0-4C61-A00D-4A03959D7698@wallan.se>
References: <BN7PR05MB443619F97B44C1B5EB816F159C4F0@BN7PR05MB4436.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Marta Seda <Marta.Seda@calix.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FFGYvt8dC52EFp8J7BmtJK0exdk>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-01, Missing Alarm Attributes
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 12:18:25 -0000

Hi Marta!
Adding to ietf-alarms-x733 from the ITU specs.
Could look something like this:

  augment /al:alarms/al:alarm-list/al:alarm:
    +--ro event-type?                event-type
    +--ro probable-cause?            uint32
    +--ro probable-cause-string?     string
    +--ro threshold-information
    |  +--ro triggered-threshold?   string
    |  +--ro (threshold-level)?
    |  |  +--:(up)
    |  |  |  +--ro up-high?         observed-value
    |  |  |  +--ro up-low?          observed-value
    |  |  +--:(down)
    |  |     +--ro down-high?       observed-value
    |  |     +--ro down-low?        observed-value
    |  +--ro arm-time?              yang:date-and-time
    +--ro monitored-attributes* []
    |  +--ro id?      al:resource
    |  +--ro value?   string
    +--ro proposed-repair-actions*   string
    +--ro trend-indication?          trend
    +--ro backedup-status?           boolean
    +--ro backup-object?             al:resource

Question to you, additional-information, that super generic thing. Do you think it is useful?
How should the definition look like…
AdditionalInformation ::= SET OF ManagementExtension
ManagementExtension ::= SEQUENCE
 {
  identifier  DMI-EXTENSION.&id({ManagementExtensionSet}),
  significance  [1]  BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
  information [2]  DMI-EXTENSION.&Value({ManagementExtensionSet}{@.identifier})
}

We could have a list with leafs identifier string, significance boolean and information string ?
Would it add any value?

Do you still think the security attributes are useful?
Br Stefan


> On 28 Jun 2018, at 02:01, Marta Seda <Marta.Seda@calix.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> Thank you for the updated draft v-(01) CCAMP Alarm Module.  This draft is missing alarm attributes.  I have attached an excel spreadsheet to illustrate the question.  The attachment contains two tables:
> 
> 	• Alarm-fields for alarm inventory
> 	• Alarm-fields for alarm instances
>  
> 
> Both tables compare the list of supported CCAMP alarm attributes for different “specialized” alarm types (e.g., sensor alarms, E.720-like grade of service alarms (alarms risen under certain traffic conditions), security alarms and MEF 35.1 Stateful Events Alarms).
> 
>  
> 
> For each attribute, traceability to which standards discusses these attributes is included in the attachment. 
> 
>  
> 
> If one examines the differences, the following alarm attributes are not included in the CCAMP alarm module:
> 
> 	• Service-effect (GR-833 defines alarm attribute – only included this in case vendors need to support this alarm attribute for legacy reasons)
> 	• Threshold information (x.733, 3GPP TS 32.111-2 , M.3100)
> 	• Monitored attributes (x.733, 3GPP TS 32.111-2 , M.3100)
> 	• Proposed repair actions (x.733, 3GPP TS 32.111-2 , M.3100)
> 	• Tca-type (MEF35.1 specific attribute)
> 	• Security alarm detector (x.736, 3GPP TS 32.111-2)
> 	• Security alarm cause (x.736, 3GPP TS 32.111-2)
> 	• Service user (x.736, 3GPP TS 32.111-2)
> 	• Service provider (x.736, 3GPP TS 32.111-2)
> 	• Additional information (3GPP TS 32.111-2, X.736, X.733)
>  
> 
> For the X.733 traceable alarm attributes, these attributes are considered “optional” in nature.  On the other hand, X.736 considers the security attributes (starting with “security-x”) as mandatory.
> 
>  
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> a) Is there any particular reason for the omission of these attributes?   
> 
> b) Are there any plans to support any of these attributes in the CCAMP Alarm module in the future?  Or do you view these attributes as outside of the IETF CCAMP scope (and therefore if someone needs these particular attributes they can augment the IETF CCAMP YANG?  I am attempting to understand the boundaries of what CCAMP intends to cover.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Marta Seda
> 
>  
> 
> <alarm-attributes-per-alarm-type.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp