[Entmib] #310: Alarm State Issues
"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> Mon, 29 March 2004 15:57 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 KAA09868 for <entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:57:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B7z8H-0001s1-74 for entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:57:01 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2TFv1Z3007186 for entmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:57:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B7z8G-0001rc-O8; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:57:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B7z7n-0001ql-Ea for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:56:31 -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 KAA09833 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:56:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B7z7i-0007l5-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:56:26 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B7z6m-0007bq-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:55:29 -0500
Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B7z5u-0007M0-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:54:34 -0500
Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i2TFs2A15641 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:54:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <GXT6LPDB>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:54:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340AA4243E@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
To: entmib@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:53:55 -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] #310: 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>
hi <Sharon> I'm fine with adding an 'underTest' bit. Building on what is there for 'underRepair' but fixing an odd typo and building on what Dave suggests below, I propose the following " When no bits of this attribute are set, then there are no outstanding alarms against this resource and it is not under repair or test. If the value of under repair is set, the resource is currently being repaired. If the value of 'underTest' is set, then this resource is currently under test. If 'underTest' or 'underRepair' bits are set, depending on the implementation, may make the other values in this bit string unreliable." And in the description of the entStateAlarm object "If the value of the 'underTest' bit is set, then the entStateOper object MUST have a value of 'testing'." </Sharon> David T. Perkins [dperkins@dsperkins.com] " The resolution must include a value when the operState value is 'testing'. The resulting BITs should be something like: unknown - status unknown (if set, then no other bits may be set) underRepair - item under repair underTest - item being tested critial - one or more critical fault conditions present major - one or more major fault conditions present minor - one or more minor fault conditions present warning - one or more warning fault conditions present indeterminate - one or more indeterminate fault conditions present Note: when 'underRepair' or 'underTest' BITs are set, then the manager should probably "discount" the importance of any outstanding fault conditions " Sharon Chisholm Portfolio Integration Nortel Networks Ottawa, Canada _______________________________________________ Entmib mailing list Entmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
- [Entmib] #310: Alarm State Issues Sharon Chisholm