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

"Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortelnetworks.com> Tue, 24 February 2004 16:01 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 LAA27482 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AvezU-0001Br-Sd; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:01:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aveyc-00018Y-Cy for entmib@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:00:06 -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 LAA27402 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AveyZ-00047e-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:00:03 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Avexa-000412-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:59:03 -0500
Received: from zcars0m9.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.157]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Avewf-0003pK-00 for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:58:05 -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 i1OFvRq02773 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:57:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <FS3C8DXL>; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:57:27 -0500
Message-ID: <3549C09B853DD5119B540002A52CDD340A46439E@zcard0ka.ca.nortel.com>
From: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortelnetworks.com>
To: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Entmib] FW: [psg.com #310] AutoReply: Alarm State Issues
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:57:19 -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
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.

[Note that the previously proposed edits were done and are reflected in
version -03 of the Entity State MIB. The following is an additional edit on
top of that.]

In the DESCRIPTION of AlarmStatus remove the following text:

"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.  "

And in the enumeration for AlarmStatus, replace:

"
                alarmOutstanding(5),
                -- The following are not defined in X.733
                warning (6),
                indeterminate (7)
                              "

With

"                -- The following are not defined in X.733
                warning (5),
                indeterminate (6)
                              "
Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:40 AM
To: entmib@ietf.org
Subject: 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

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