Re: [Disman] Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples

"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com> Tue, 10 March 2009 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <SCHISHOL@nortel.com>
X-Original-To: disman@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: disman@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535E73A68FB for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yaqhy5EH7xwl for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EA83A6878 for <disman@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n2AHA3j10662; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:10:03 GMT
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:10:12 -0400
Message-ID: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B418A32D88@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <49B69B85.4070201@redback.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Disman] Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples
Thread-Index: AcmhoQikcNporBhfSMKeo4mBglu6GAAAISlQ
References: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B418995DE4@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> <49B69B85.4070201@redback.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortel.com>
To: Michael Thatcher <thatcher@redback.com>
Cc: disman@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Disman] Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/disman>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:09:50 -0000

Hi

This update was just intended to clarify for the first issue raised
about the errata text and covers the two changes listed below. I planned
a separate email on the other issues, but here is a sneak peak.

We could have used named lists when we did the examples, but we didn't.
I don't think it's that difficult for people to imagine where the list
name would fit in, but I suspect people could easily mess up not having
a list name had we chosen to include one in the examples. Since each
change to the document risks introducing new errors, my preference is to
leave the examples without a named list.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thatcher [mailto:thatcher@redback.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: disman@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Disman] Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples

Is there a reason why no value is given for alarmList name  and that
ituAlarmGenericModel does not include all the indices defined for
alarmModelEntry?  The description should at least acknowlege the index
existence and indicate why it is are not used in the example.

mike thatcher

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> Hi
>
> Attached is what I would expect the example section to look like after

> executing errata related to the first issue from the consolidated list

> I sent out a while back. Note the changes are marked. It consists of 
> two general changes to the original document
>
> 1. replace ituPerceivedSeverity with ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity since 
> the former is the name of the textual convention, not the object
>
> 2. update the numbers of the alarmModelState, as appropriate. If my 
> memory is to be believed, I think originally the only criteria on the 
> mapping from alarmModelState to ituPerceivedSeverity was that the 
> numbers in alarmModelState got bigger as things got worse. This is 
> what was done in the examples. At some point we introduced a more 
> prescriptive mapping and the examples were not updated to reflect
this.
>
> If this makes sense to everyone, then I think the next step is to 
> ensure we have an unambiguous way to express this for the errata.
>
> Sharon Chisholm
> Nortel
> Ottawa, Ontario
> Canada
>