IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 12 May 2010 05:39 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.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 302173A6AD7 for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 22:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_40=-0.185]
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 WCEghQsiQYhd for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 22:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEB03A67AC for <disman@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 22:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=kmpZNI5i7X7hk0ODANifGMDiKKFLP0/8/Ep0gfMCcAiHU/wr5PPxo0TaiMMsSrEI; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [99.41.49.152] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1OC4f2-0004bF-K0; Wed, 12 May 2010 01:39:12 -0400
Message-ID: <003401caf195$6e6f75e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: bidulock@openss7.org
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEA8A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <003e01caf131$0fef1a20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20100511234401.GA11848@openss7.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 22:38:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a91fc720532780353e2d7ed089882f6893bd8189e35ecccb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.49.152
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
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 05:39:27 -0000

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.)

> 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.

> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email