IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Disman] Fw: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1652)

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 14 January 2009 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <disman-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: disman-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-disman-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80FE3A6820; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:56:56 -0800 (PST)
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 E8A963A680D for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.215
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.105, BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 GyC3QGJudVby for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BED3A6820 for <disman@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:56:54 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=JaRVnz5l/AYVYR3O6NBEzAkRE6jdg/5Hw/PBH2c4SHf+eZ4JHHN6tXtt5gv3ejoJ; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To: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 [68.166.38.202] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1LMyk3-00089o-PC for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:56:40 -0500
Message-ID: <003101c9760d$4b879940$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: Disman <disman@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:59:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8886924630f8852f1739b243beab43807f481c632c6444e46f0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.38.202
Subject: [Disman] Fw: [Technical Errata Reported] 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/pipermail/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>
Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

I'm not sure why this didn't automatically go to the disman mailing
list, but here it is.  Comments?

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: <bidulock@openss7.org>; <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:23 PM
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1652)
>
>
> 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=1652
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Brian Bidulock <bidulock@openss7.org>
>
> 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.
>
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email