Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org> Wed, 12 May 2010 12:01 UTC
Return-Path: <bidulock@openss7.org>
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 156C33A690F for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 05:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.569, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 aiHTqrrDbJNF for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 05:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.openss7.com (gw.openss7.com [206.75.119.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF4E3A685B for <disman@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:Y9TxTqzz8FMG9RawE9KeWmtcDgOE1Bv1@ns5.evil.openss7.net [192.168.9.5]) by gw.openss7.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3+etch1) with ESMTP id o4CC15eo001027; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:01:05 -0600
Received: from wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (IDENT:I70ZuNFVnEdqMyMQkncFx4VWaoeP6AmC@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id o4CC15Zs000833; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:01:05 -0600
Received: (from brian@localhost) by wilbur.pigworks.openss7.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id o4CC159O000832; Wed, 12 May 2010 06:01:05 -0600
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 06:01:05 -0600
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20100512120105.GA551@openss7.org>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEA8A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <003e01caf131$0fef1a20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20100511234401.GA11848@openss7.org> <003401caf195$6e6f75e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20100512114530.GA32075@openss7.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20100512114530.GA32075@openss7.org>
Organization: http://www.openss7.org/
Dsn-Notification-To: <bidulock@openss7.org>
X-Spam-To: <blockme@openss7.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Disman <disman@ietf.org>, schishol@nortelnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org
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: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:01:22 -0000
Randy, I should have also given you the comment from the M.3100 GDMOS: -- 7.3.13 alarmStatus -- The semantics of alarmStatus defined in ITU-T Recommendation M.3100 -- are different from alarmStatus defined in ITU-T Recommendation X.721 -- and ITU-T Recommendation X.731. This difference in semantics is -- deliberate and reflects the requirement of Telecom Operators to have -- an aggregated or consolidated alarm status for alarm management. --brian On Wed, 12 May 2010, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: > Randy, > > On Tue, 11 May 2010, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Hi - > > > > > From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org> > > > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> > > > Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; "Disman" <disman@ietf.org>; <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:44 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) > > > > > > Randy, > > > > > > Actually, the severity levels from M.3100 are completely different. > > > This MIB models the ITU-T Rec. X.721 ISO/EIC 10165-2 severities (OSI > > > severities, not telco severities). > > > > They're the same thing. M.3100 IMPORTS PerceivedSeverity from X.721 > > The tables in M.3100 for handling PerceivedSeverity appear to > > be consistent with X.721 and X.733 (Which is not surprising, > > since some of the same people were involved in writing all three.) > > You still don't get it: I am not talking about enumerations of > perceivedSeverity. I am talking about the severity levels of > alarmStatus: > > This from the M.3100 GDMOs: (alarmStatus ATTRIBUTE DEFINED AS) > > "The Alarm Status attribute type indicates the occurrence of an > abnormal condition relating to an object. This attribute may also > function as a summary indicator of alarm conditions associated with > a specific resource. It is used to indicate the existence of an > alarm condition, a pending alarm condition such as threshold > situations, or (when used as a summary indicator) the highest > severity of active alarm conditions. When used as a summary > indicator, the order of severity (from highest to lowest) is: > > activeReportable-Critical > activeReportable-Major > activeReportable-Minor > activeReportable-Indeterminate > activeReportable-Warning > activePending > cleared." > > And from the M.3100 ASN: > > AlarmStatus ::= ENUMERATED { > cleared(0), > activeReportable-Indeterminate(1), > activeReportable-Warning(2), > activeReportable-Minor(3), > activeReportable-Major(4), > activeReportable-Critical(5), > activePending(6) } > > Now, just in the MIB: > > "Entries appear in this table whenever an entry is created > in the alarmModelTable with a value of alarmModelState in > the range from 1 to 6. Entries disappear from this table > whenever the corresponding entries are deleted from the > alarmModelTable, including in cases where those entries > have been deleted due to local system action. The value of > alarmModelSpecificPointer has no effect on the creation > or deletion of entries in this table. Values of > alarmModelState map to values of ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity > as follows: > > alarmModelState -> ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity > 1 -> clear (1) > 2 -> indeterminate (2) > 3 -> warning (6) > 4 -> minor (5) > 5 -> major (4) > 6 -> critical (3) > > All other values of alarmModelState MUST NOT appear > in this table. > > And alarmModelState > > "A value of 1 MUST indicate a clear alarm state. > The value of this object MUST be less than the > alarmModelState of more severe alarm states for > this alarm. The value of this object MUST be more > than the alarmModelState of less severe alarm states > for this alarm." > > > So, the alarm model state values must be ordered in order of severity, > otherwise, masking occurs. However, the alarmModelState value > mapping from perceivedSeverity do no match the M.3100 alarmStatus > severity levels. INDETERMINATE AND WARNING ARE REVERSED. Therefore > the mapping does not follow the MUST rules for alarmModelState per > M.3100 alarmStatus which is NOT the same as the X.721 alarmStatus. > > > > > > Nevertheless, if one follows the alarm states in the document, a > > > more severe alarm (indeterminate(2)) will be masked by a less > > > severe alarm (warning(6)), making it largely unusable for the > > > purpose for which it was intended. > > > > X.721 specifically comments (page 41) that "indeterminate" is > > only used when it is not possible to assign one of the other values. > > The semantics nailed down in X.733, in clause 8.1.2.3, only > > specify the relative severity of the other values, not for "indeterminate". > > Likewise, 8.1.2.6, "Trend Indication", also does not include > > "indeterminate" in the ordering. Consequently, I do not see how > > either the current ordering, nor the proposed change, could be > > supported by citing M.3100 or X.733. > > See M.3100 alarmStatus, per above. Because the alarmModelState > rule (MUST) is violated, and alarm of activeReportable-Warning > will mask more severe alarms of activeReportable-Indeterminate. > > > > > > I submitted this errata over a year ago. In the meantime I have > > > found this MIB so lacking that I implemented alarms management > > > completely in private MIBs. > > > > > > So, do what you want with it: it is useless to me. > > ... > > > > I'm not arguing your point. I'm just saying that the "verifier notes" > > that accompanied the rejection appear to belong to a DIFFERENT > > erratum, and did not address the point of your comments. I'm > > AGREEING with you that there is (at least) a documentation problem, > > in that the mapping does not fit X.721 / X.733. M.3100 merely imports > > the definition from X.721, and does NOT, as far as I can see, do anything > > to "indeterminate" to justify the proposed change in order. However, it > > also makes it clear that the existing order, while perhaps sensible for > > some application, is not justified by the base standards. > > > > Randy > > > Again, read my lips: not perceivedSeverity enumerations, but > M.3100 alarmStatus to alarmModelState mapping. > > --brian > > -- > Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦ > bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦ > http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦ > ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦ > ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦ -- Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦ bidulock@openss7.org ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦ http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦ ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦ ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦
- [Disman] Fw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Randy Presuhn
- [Disman] Fw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Randy Presuhn
- [Disman] RFC 3877 errata Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 errata Michael Thatcher
- Re: [Disman] Fw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- [Disman] FW: [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652) Romascanu, Dan (Dan)