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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

Please use my first name and not the family name. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Disman; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
> 
> Romascanu,,
> 
> Perhaps the errata should add a statement then, that the 
> order is, and will remain, in error.
> 
> --brian
> 
> On Tue, 11 May 2010, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> >  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 |
>