Re: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

Dan's suggestion makes sense to me.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Disman] another question about alarmMib..


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