RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues

Hi

Ok, while I still think it's a useful little bit, if there are not
objections, I'm willing to remove it. Are there any other views on this?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de] 
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:52 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:51:56PM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

>              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. "

I still fail to understand why we need a bit to summarize 6 other bits in a
single byte. Unless someone can explain what the performance gain is of this
summary bit, I tend to object to having this bit.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
Entmib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib