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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Thu, 13 May 2010 07:17 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 829AA3A6B7B for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2010 00:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.068
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.531, 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 SUOa2r6Qp0qI for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 May 2010 00:17:11 -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 167A93A6AD2 for <disman@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 May 2010 00:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,220,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="188463531"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2010 03:14:45 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,220,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="474579276"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2010 03:14:44 -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: Thu, 13 May 2010 09:14:22 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEE63@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <007a01caf200$2ef65da0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
Thread-Index: AcryAC6crQvnlrfjTfia33/LPUSRQwAams2w
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEA8A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <003e01caf131$0fef1a20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20100511234401.GA11848@openss7.org> <003401caf195$6e6f75e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20100512114530.GA32075@openss7.org> <20100512120105.GA551@openss7.org> <007a01caf200$2ef65da0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <bidulock@openss7.org>
Cc: 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: Thu, 13 May 2010 07:17:12 -0000

(speaking as a contributor and co-author of RFC 3877)

Our intention with ituAlarmTable was stated in 4.1.3 

> Optionally, ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity models
   the states in terms of ITU perceived severity. 

and then in 5.1:

> The ituAlarmTable contains information from the ITU Alarm Model about
   possible alarms in the system.

My recollection is that we did not seek exact emulation, but a mapping
that makes sense for the severity levels. We looked at the ITU-T
standards because we did not want to reinvent the wheel. I personally
was not aware about the differences between M.3100 and X.733 on this
respect, but frankly I was relying on Sharon who was at that time
directly involved in the ITU-T work. 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:23 PM
> To: bidulock@openss7.org
> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Disman; schishol@nortelnetworks.com
> Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> > Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>om>; "Disman" 
> > <disman@ietf.org>rg>; <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
> >
> > Randy,
> > 
> > I should have also given you the comment from the M.3100 GDMOS:
> > 
> > -- 7.3.13 alarmStatus
> > -- The semantics of alarmStatus defined in ITU-T 
> Recommendation M.3100
> > -- are different from alarmStatus defined in ITU-T Recommendation 
> > X.721
> > -- and ITU-T Recommendation X.731.  This difference in semantics is
> > -- deliberate and reflects the requirement of Telecom Operators to 
> > have
> > -- an aggregated or consolidated alarm status for alarm management.
> ...
> 
> Two observations:
>    (1)  The working group was specifically chartered:
>    "The work on the Alarm MIB will take into consideration existing
>    standards and practices, such as ITU-T X.733.  Whether any 
> mappings to
>    these other standards appear in the Alarm MIB or in 
> separate documents
>    will be decided by the WG.  The WG will actively seek participation
>    from ITU participants to make ensure that the ITU work is correctly
>    understood."   So, I wondered, why does section 3.1 in its 
> definition
>    of "Alarm State" (NOT "Status") give M.3100 as an example rather
>    than X.733?  Turns out it was in response to my comment requesting
>    that *a* reference be given  (October 7, 2003) but there was no
>    discussion whether one or the other would have been a 
> better example
>    to cite.
> 
>   (2) RFC3877 never mentions alarmStatus.  Is your issue that 
> you'd expect the
>   ituAlarmTable in RFC 3877 to emulate the behaviour of an 
> ITU (pick your
>   standard) alarmStatus?  Sharon, Dan, was that the intent?
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
>