fardy@minotaur.ctron.com Thu, 03 December 1992 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-chassismib>
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA28730; Thu, 3 Dec 92 16:08:21 -0500
Received: from nic.near.net by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61++/2.8s-UTK) id AA28720; Thu, 3 Dec 92 16:08:14 -0500
Received: from ctron.com by nic.near.net id aa22201; 3 Dec 92 16:08 EST
Received: from minotaur.ctron ([]) by ctron.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01663; Thu, 3 Dec 92 16:08:47 EST
Received: by minotaur.ctron (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00391; Thu, 3 Dec 92 16:07:49 EST
Message-Id: <9212032107.AA00391@minotaur.ctron>
To: chassismib@cs.utk.edu
Cc: fardy@minotaur.ctron.com, jra@minotaur.ctron.com
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 92 16:07:48 -0500
From: fardy@minotaur.ctron.com

  The current chassis mib (Nov. 30) has a set of well-known sensor types
(including temperature, fans and humidity).  These sensors have associated
statuses that include unkown, bad, warning and good.  

I would like to propose that both the nominal and actual values of these sensors
be included (in ChasEnvironEntry?).  I believe this could be done by specifiying
a unit of measurement per well-known sensor type that would be Integer based.

I realize one reason for the current status variables is that  all chassis should
not be required to instrument actual values.  However saying a value is good
implies both a nominal and actual value anyway.

The advantages would include greater flexibility in defining acceptable values
and not requiring this value to be hardcoded.  

Can we provide these values in a way that does not over burden the chassis agent?

  •   fardy