RE: Taking to the list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

the disman mib has enumerations I believe!

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 18 november 2003 23:06
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Adrian Farrel; Lou Berger
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Taking to the
> list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
> 
> 
> Thanks Bert.
> 
> M.3100 provides the generic information model, X.733 and 
> X.736 define OSI generics pointing to X.721, and X.721 
> provides abstract syntax. We were looking for an enumeration 
> to use vs. needing to support abstract syntax strings in 
> signaling. Any suggestions are welcome.
> Deborah
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:46 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel; Lou Berger
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Taking to the
> list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
> 
> 
> Things to potentially look at:
> 
>   draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt
> 
>   [M.3100]    ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information
>               Model", 1995
> 
>   [X.733]     ITU Recommendation X.733, "Information Technology - Open
>               Systems Interconnection - System Management: Alarm
>               Reporting Function", 1992
> 
>   [X.736]     ITU Recommendation X.736, "Information Technology - Open
>               Systems Interconnection - System Management: Security
>               Alarm Reporting Function", 1992
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > Sent: dinsdag 11 november 2003 17:28
> > To: Lou Berger
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Taking to the
> > list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
> > 
> > 
> > Lou,
> > 
> > I believe the alarm reference was M.3100.
> > 
> > Can someone confirm?
> > 
> > Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > > In the morning's meeting the AD's asked to bring the 
> proposed Alarm 
> > > communication extension to "the list".  For today's 
> > presentation see:
> > > http://www.labn.net/docs/AlarmSpec00.pdf
> > > 
> > > I believe the issues to be discussed are:
> > > 1) Is there general interest in this work?
> > > 2) Should the usage of new TLVs in Error_Spec be permitted?
> > >          (We think there's some value, particularly with string
> > >           and timestamp)
> > > 3) Are there good references for alarm code points?
> > > 
> > > Thank,
> > > Lou (and co-authors)
> > 
> > 
>