[Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues
"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> Wed, 11 February 2004 19:47 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17105 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar0K4-0006uQ-Vt; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ar0K4-0006uF-3n for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:00 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17090 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar0K1-0004aA-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:46:57 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar0J3-0004U9-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:45:58 -0500
Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.157]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ar0IP-0004KF-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:45:17 -0500
Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i1BJiku29357 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:44:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1FNH7253>; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:44:46 -0500
Message-ID: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A243B00@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
To: entmib@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:44:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues
Sender: entmib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:entmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-310. The issue will be considered closed pending the proposed edit being done. In the description of AlarmStatus replace " When the value of under repair is set, the resource is currently being repaired." With " When the value of under repair is set, the resource is currently being repaired, which depending on the implementation, may make the other values in this bit string unreliable." And replace " When the value of 'alarmOutstanding' is set, one or more alarms is active against the resource. The fault may or may not be disabling. " With " When the value of 'alarmOutstanding' is set, one or more alarms is active against the resource. The fault may or may not be disabling. This bit provides a high-level summary that can be used to determine whether or not to examine the rest of the values." An explanation on the difference between raw and computed state, as defined in section 2.1 was previously provided in relation to the severity of alarms issue. No change appears to be necessary on that particular issue. Sharon -----Original Message----- From: entity-state [mailto:rt+entity-state@rt.psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:58 AM To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] Subject: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues <clip> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith McCloghrie [kzm@cisco.com] "> 'underRepair' is an operState, not an AlarmState. > > from what perspective are the alarms classified as critical/major/minor/etc. > e.g., does a particular fault have the same alarm status in 'coldStandby' > as it does in 'hotStandby' or in 'providingService' ?? (hint: the answer > is no!!). " Juergen Schoenwaelder [j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de] "6) AlarmStatus TC: I do not really understand the alarmOutStanding bit. It seems like this is set whenever one of critical, major, minor, warning and indeterminate is set. But if this is true, I think the bit is not really terrible useful. Perhaps the bit has some other meaning. If so, please clarify." _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list Entmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
- [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm Stat… Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … David T. Perkins
- RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … Sharon Chisholm
- RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … Sharon Chisholm
- Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … Sharon Chisholm
- RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm … Sharon Chisholm