Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData description
"C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc." <heard@vvnet.com> Fri, 12 June 1998 06:42 UTC
Delivery-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:42:09 -0400
Return-Path: heard@vvnet.com
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns.cnri.reston.va.us [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id CAA10462 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from trix.cisco.com (trix-hme0.cisco.com [171.69.63.45]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id CAA22959 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (mailgate-sj-1.cisco.com [198.92.30.31]) by trix.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA24018 for <extdom.trunk-mib@aliashost.cisco.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from proxy1.cisco.com (proxy1.cisco.com [192.31.7.88]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with ESMTP id XAA29415 for <trunk-mib@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by proxy1.cisco.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id XAA06744 for <trunk-mib@external.cisco.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell16.ba.best.com(206.184.139.148) by proxy1.cisco.com via smap (V2.0) id xma006737; Fri, 12 Jun 98 06:36:09 GMT
X-SMAP-Received-From: outside
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell16.ba.best.com (8.8.8/8.8.BEST) with SMTP id XAA07984; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell16.ba.best.com: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:32:23 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc." <heard@vvnet.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell16.ba.best.com
To: atommib@thumper.bellcore.com, trunk-mib@external.cisco.com
Subject: Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData description
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980611233012.6523C-100000@shell16.ba.best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
When the final edits to <draft-ietf-atommib-sonetng-02.txt> were made in July 1996, seven IntervalValidData flags were added, largely at my urging, so that it would be possible to indicate whether or not the data for a given interval is valid or invalid in the sense defined in ANSI T1.231-1993 Sec. 9.1.2.2. The intent -- as I understood it at the time -- was that one of these these flags would be set to false(2) if the data stored for the corresponding interval interval is incomplete or otherwise invalid because: - the data stored for this interval is for a period greater or less than 15 minutes; or - some data is missing (e.g., when a near-end defect prevents some far-end data from being collected). Similar objects also exist in the DS1 and DS3 MIBs. The objects in question are sonetSectionIntervalValidData sonetLineIntervalValidData sonetFarEndLineIntervalValidData sonetPathIntervalValidData sonetFarEndPathIntervalValidData sonetVTIntervalValidData sonetFarEndVTIntervalValidData dsx1IntervalValidData dsx1FarEndIntervalValidData dsx3IntervalValidData dsx3FarEndIntervalValidData and the all have the same description clause: "This variable indicates if there is valid data for this interval." >From recent traffic on the atommib mailing list it is clear that this description is not sufficient to convey the intent. Here is one of the comments: Ken Chapman, 08 Jun 1998: > > I don't know if this has been rasied before, but... > I find the wording of the DESCRIPTION clauses for all of the > xyzIntervalValidData variable to be missleading: > "This variable indicates if there is valid data for this interval." XXX > I think they should read: XXX > "This variable indicates if the data for this interval is valid." XXX > > The way it is now, it sounds like it indicates if the data is > *available* or not, rather than if the valid flag is set per > ANSI T1.231 clause 9.1.2.2. > Am I the only one that is confused? I proposed the following alternative: "This variable assumes the value true(1) if the data stored XXX for this interval is both valid and complete. It is set to XXX false(2) if the data stored for this interval is incomplete XXX or otherwise invalid because: XXX XXX - the data stored for this interval is for a period greater XXX or less than 15 minutes; or XXX XXX - some data is missing (e.g., when a near-end defect prevents XXX some far-end data from being collected)." XXX I am willing to accept either proposal, but I think that _some_ change is needed. What say the document editors, quality reviewers, and other WG members? Mike -- C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc. heard@vvnet.com
- Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData descrip… C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc.
- Re: Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData des… Rajesh Abbi
- Re: Proposals to clarify xyzIntervalValidData des… C. M. Heard/VVNET, Inc.