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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 12 May 2010 10:11 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 6AFF73A6A46 for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 03:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.552, 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 E8bM7dklvxLq for <disman@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 03:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E093A6B11 for <disman@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,213,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="217655935"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2010 06:11:17 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,213,1272859200"; d="scan'208";a="474208006"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2010 06:11:17 -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, 12 May 2010 12:11:13 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEC68@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100511145426.GA28093@openss7.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Disman] [Errata Rejected] RFC3877 (1652)
Thread-Index: AcrxLmD+cqmd5MhkR6WPr/Am6+TOkwAjO6Hw
References: <20100511102109.B1C2BE0672@rfc-editor.org><20100511125110.GA23969@openss7.org><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04021BEA8A@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <20100511145426.GA28093@openss7.org>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <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: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:11:36 -0000

Brian,

Please use my first name and not the family name. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: disman-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:disman-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Disman; schishol@nortelnetworks.com
> 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:bidulock@openss7.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:51 PM
> > > To: RFC Errata System
> > > Cc: schishol@nortelnetworks.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 
> iesg@iesg.org
> > > 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 <bidulock@openss7.org> 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 |
> > > bidulock@openss7.org    | 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 |
> bidulock@openss7.org    | 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 |
>