Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks to Michael for catching an d reporting this. I apologize for the
late response. All excuses related to a busy end of the year and a
holiday season that already begun in some legislations apply. 

There is a problem with this erratum and with the document itself. There
are actually two problems. 

1. The original erratum submitted by [e-mail] was
reporting that the mapping 

     alarmModelState -> ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity
            1 -> clear (1)
            2 -> indeterminate (2)
            3 -> warning (6)
            4 -> minor (5)
            5 -> major (4)
            6 -> critical (3) 

is not applied consistently in the examples. 

This is correct, and we acknowledged this problem. The RFC Editor
however inserted a different resolution in the RFC Errata that was
published. 

Right now I see such problems in the examples in 6.1 to 6.3. 

2. In examples 6.2 and 6.3 ituPerceivedSeverity is used instead of
ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity

My proposal is to issue a new erratum to correct the above and to ask
the RFC Editor to cancel or reject the current erratum. 

With everybody's permission we shall do this in the first few weeks of
the new year. 

I hope this helps. 

Happy Holidays,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:45 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Michael Thatcher" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..
> ...
> > The description of alarmClearIndex says that "This object 
> has the same 
> > value as the alarmActiveIndex that this alarm instance had 
> when it was 
> > active".  Does this mean that clear events cannot be placed in this 
> > table which do not have a related alarm in the alarmActiveTable?
> 
> It sounds that way.
> 
> > If there are multiple related entries in the 
> alarmActiveTable, does it 
> > matter which alarmActiveIndex value is used?
> 
> I can't imagine why it would.  It does, however, seem to be 
> an argument for maintaining a 1:1 correspondence, even though 
> I doubt that that was the intent.
> 
> It would be good to hear from the folks who have actually 
> already implemented or deployed this MIB.
> 
> Randy
> 
>