IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de> Mon, 16 February 2004 10:54 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 FAA10825 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:54:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgO1-0004UL-3V; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:54:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AsgNG-0004Th-2u for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:53:14 -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 FAA10795 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:53:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgNC-0002oH-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:53:10 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgMK-0002lu-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:52:16 -0500
Received: from g4d24.g.pppool.de ([80.185.77.36] helo=james.eecs.iu-bremen.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AsgLg-0002iv-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:51:36 -0500
Received: by james.eecs.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4BE579062; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:51:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:51:35 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
To: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
Cc: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues
Message-ID: <20040216105135.GA788@iu-bremen.de>
Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
Mail-Followup-To: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>, entmib@ietf.org
References: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A2A727C@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A2A727C@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
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=none autolearn=no version=2.60
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>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email