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

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

More errata.  I don't know why this is not being automatically sent
to the old WG mailing list.

Randy

> From: "Alice Hagens" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[e-mail]>; "Ron Bonica" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3877 (1652)
>
> Please note that line breaks have been added to the Original/
> Corrected text of this report, as shown below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3877&eid=1652
>
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Brian Bidulock <[e-mail]>
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/ah
>
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 8:23 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 <[e-mail]>
> >
> > 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
>