Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819)
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 09 September 2009 16:05 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.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 1744128C391 for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, 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 d5ieH0QFn6eo for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E88728C0DB for <disman@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,359,1249272000"; d="scan'208";a="156308325"
Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2009 12:05:31 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2009 12:05:30 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:05:13 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401A0C09E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401A0C084@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819)
thread-index: AcoVieWQUA/63hNcQJmRQq99/AO1iwb1/TUAAAFZqjA=
References: <200907291659.n6TGxva6012984@boreas.isi.edu><02fe01ca158a$1f5dedc0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401A0C084@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, schishol@nortelnetworks.com, rbonica@juniper.net, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Enda.Murphy@ericsson.com, Disman <disman@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819)
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, 09 Sep 2009 16:05:04 -0000
The appropriate recommendation would be actually Hold for Document Update. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: disman-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:disman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:29 PM > To: Randy Presuhn; schishol@nortelnetworks.com; > rbonica@juniper.net; RFC Errata System > Cc: Enda.Murphy@ericsson.com; Disman; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819) > > I suggest to Reject this Errata Request. > > Technically the submitter is right. However, the change > cannot be made the way suggested in the Errata, but only by > deprecating the object and defining a new object with correct > enumerated values. This can be done only in a future version > of the MIB module. > > Dan > > (speaking as contributor and co-author of RFC 3877) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:04 AM > > To: schishol@nortelnetworks.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); > > rbonica@juniper.net; RFC Errata System > > Cc: Enda.Murphy@ericsson.com; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; Disman > > Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819) > > > > Hi - > > > > Forwarded to the disman@ietf.org mailing list for (I hope!) > > discussion. > > > > Randy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "RFC Errata System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > > > To: <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>; <dromasca@avaya.com>; > > > <dromasca@avaya.com>; <rbonica@juniper.net>; > > <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> > > > Cc: <Enda.Murphy@ericsson.com>; <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:59 AM > > > Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1819) > > > > > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted 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=1819 > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > Type: Technical > > > Reported by: Enda Murphy <Enda.Murphy@ericsson.com> > > > > > > Section: 5.2 > > > > > > Original Text > > > ------------- > > > -- The following are used with Processing error alarm. > > > storageCapacityProblem (151), > > > memoryMismatch (152), > > > corruptData (153), > > > outOfCPUCycles (154), > > > sfwrEnvironmentProblem (155), > > > sfwrDownloadFailure (156), > > > lossOfRealTimel (157), > > > --A processing error alarm to be issued after the system has > > > --reinitialised. This will indicate > > > --to the management systems that the view they have of > > the managed > > > --system may no longer > > > --be valid. Usage example: The managed > > > --system issues this alarm after a reinitialization > > with severity > > > --warning to inform the > > > --management system about the event. No clearing > > notification will > > > --be sent. > > > applicationSubsystemFailure (158), > > > configurationOrCustomisationError (159), > > > databaseInconsistency (160), > > > fileError (161), > > > outOfMemory (162), > > > softwareError (163), > > > timeoutExpired (164), > > > underlayingResourceUnavailable (165), > > > versionMismatch (166), > > > --Values 168-200 are reserved for processing error > alarm related > > > -- probable causes. > > > > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > -------------- > > > -- The following are used with Processing error alarm. > > > storageCapacityProblem (151), > > > memoryMismatch (152), > > > corruptData (153), > > > outOfCPUCycles (154), > > > sfwrEnvironmentProblem (155), > > > sfwrDownloadFailure (156), > > > lossOfRealTime (157), > > > -- A processing error alarm to be issued if the system > > detects that it > > > has lost the time in > > > -- the real time clock but the clock itself is working. > This could > > > happen e.g. during a power > > > -- cut in a small NE which does not have battery backup for > > the real time clock. > > > reinitialized (158), > > > --A processing error alarm to be issued after the system has > > > --reinitialised. This will indicate > > > --to the management systems that the view they have of > > the managed > > > --system may no longer > > > --be valid. Usage example: The managed > > > --system issues this alarm after a reinitialization > > with severity > > > --warning to inform the > > > --management system about the event. No clearing > > notification will > > > --be sent. > > > applicationSubsystemFailure (159), > > > configurationOrCustomisationError (160), > > > databaseInconsistency (161), > > > fileError (162), > > > outOfMemory (163), > > > softwareError (164), > > > timeoutExpired (165), > > > underlayingResourceUnavailable (166), > > > versionMismatch (167), > > > --Values 168-200 are reserved for processing error > alarm related > > > -- probable causes. > > > > > > > > > Notes > > > ----- > > > It seems to be a copy/paste error from the M.3100 > Standard PC text. > > > The comment in the MIB after "lossOfRealTimel" (Note also > > rogue "l" at the end!) clearly refers to the PC string > "reinitialized" > > instead. It is strange how the integers have continued on from 158 > > instead of retaining the original values, but anyway, it > appears to be > > a mismatch between the two standards. Ironically I noticed > it when I > > saw that "versionMismatch" had different values (166 and 167). > > > > > > Instructions: > > > ------------- > > > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If > necessary, please > > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. > > > When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can > > log in to > > > change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > > > > > >
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)