Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)

["Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[e-mail]>]

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).

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.

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.

--brian

On Tue, 11 May 2010, Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> The "verifier notes" look strangely familiar to me.  My recollection
> is that they were written in response to a DIFFERENT erratum,
> namely number 1819, NOT number 1652, and thus do not address
> Brian's comment.  Did the "verifier notes" for *this* erratum get lost
> somewhere along the way?
> 
> Randy
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Disman" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> (the distribution list slightly changes)
> 
> I think that we understand this. What you proposed is a change in the
> mapping, which would not be backwards compatible with the current
> deployment. What is suggested is that the text is changed to mention the
> differences between the order in the two models - this text would
> include your observation about the order of severity not being the same
> as the one defined in the ITU-T document. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:51 PM
> > To: RFC Errata System
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
> > 
> > Let me try one more time; read my lips:
> > 
> > It is not the enumerated value that need to change.
> > 
> > The document states that the alarm states are ordered from 
> > least severe to most severe, but (without the correction) 
> > they are not.
> > 
> > --brian
> > 
> > On Tue, 11 May 2010, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > The following errata report has been rejected for RFC3877, "Alarm 
> > > Management Information Base (MIB)".
> > > 
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > You may review the report below and at:
> > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3877&eid=1652
> > > 
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Status: Rejected
> > > Type: Technical
> > > 
> > > Reported by: Brian Bidulock <[e-mail]> Date Reported: 
> > > 2009-01-13 Rejected by: Dan Romascanu (IESG)
> > > 
> > > Section: 5.4
> > > 
> > > Original Text
> > > -------------
> > > alarmModelState -> ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity
> > >        1        ->         clear (1)
> > >        2        ->         indeterminate (2)
> > >        3        ->         warning (6)
> > >        4        ->         minor (5)
> > >        5        ->         major (4)
> > >        6        ->         critical (3)
> > > 
> > > Corrected Text
> > > --------------
> > > alarmModelState -> ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity
> > >        1        ->         clear (1)
> > >        2        ->         warning (6)
> > >        3        ->         indeterminate (2)
> > >        4        ->         minor (5)
> > >        5        ->         major (4)
> > >        6        ->         critical (3)
> > > 
> > > Notes
> > > -----
> > > alarmModelState requires that the states be defined from 
> > less severe to more severe; however, under ITU-T 
> > PerceivedSeverity from ITU-T Rec. X.721 | ISO/IEC 10165-2 
> > "indeterminate" is more severe than "warning".  This change 
> > corrects the order to match the requirement for order of 
> > severity for alarmModelState.
> > >  --VERIFIER NOTES--
> > > While the discrepancy between the documents is unfortunate, 
> > there is not a technical requirement for the enumeration 
> > values to be identical, nor is there a technical requirement 
> > for the labels to be identical, even though there is 
> > obviously considerable documentation value in avoiding 
> > gratuitous differences.
> > > 
> > > What *is* technically important is that the MIB be able to 
> > uniquely represent all the cases from M.3100, and it 
> > accomplishes that goal.
> > > 
> > > In a future version of the document we can add an 
> > informative note alerting implementors to the discrepancies 
> > in numbering and spelling, so their implementations can 
> > include appropriate mapping functions to avoid losing information.
> > >    
> > > 
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC3877 (draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18)
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Title               : Alarm Management Information Base (MIB)
> > > Publication Date    : September 2004
> > > Author(s)           : S. Chisholm, D. Romascanu
> > > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > > Source              : Distributed Management
> > > Area                : Operations and Management
> > > Stream              : IETF
> > > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > 
> > -- 
> > Brian F. G. Bidulock    | The reasonable man adapts himself to the |
> > [e-mail]    | 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 ¦
[e-mail]    ¦ 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 ¦