the disman mib has enumerations I believe!
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
[<mailto:dbrungard@att.com>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>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>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>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)
> >
> >
>