[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