[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Taking to the list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
I believe thatthe codepoints we are talking about are not
under discussion. Add those are in a TC that is in a
separate MIB module in that document and the intent is
that IANA (see start of module on page 36) will maintain
that module and keep it in sync with ITU-T (in fact values under
1024 are reserved for ITU-T).
Hope this clarifies.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com]
> Sent: woensdag 19 november 2003 16:21
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Randy Presuhn
> Subject: Re: Taking to the
> list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
>
>
> FYI
>
>
> As a member of the disman WG, I have followed the development
> of the alarm mib,
> currently draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt, over some years
> and this has
> included formal liaison with SG4 and some contact with SG15
> over such issues as
> who owns the code points and who can define them. SG4 have expressed
> satisfaction with the way in which the liaison with disman WG
> has worked (as on
> the IETF web site).
>
> But
>
> 1) not knowing the working procedures of the ITU, I don't
> know if the agreement
> with disman extends to other IETF WG - the wording suggests not to me.
>
> 2) the alarm mib is currently under debate between authors
> and WG chair with a
> list of some 80 issues being resolved; the most difficult to
> resolve appear IMO
> to be the ones relating to the existence of the ITU alarm table as an
> augmentation of the basic disman alarm table (and perhaps
> IMHO the lack of
> suitable features in SMIv2). The alarm mib is complex, not
> one I would expect
> people to be able to dip into and readily extract a part thereof.
>
> 3) I have lost track of the start of this thread and just
> what it was that this,
> ccamp, WG
> wanted to include in what (and my Acrobat viewer renders the
> text of the bullet
> points in AlarmSpec as black blobs of varying size:-(! But
> whatever it is, I
> suggest you contact the
> disman chair, randy presuhn, to clarify the niceties of any
> interaction with the
> output of disman, whatever form that finally takes. It may
> be that M.3100
> related material should be in a common MIB module and not
> included in the alarm
> mib because of issues of future updates and cross references
> from multiple WGs..
>
> I think this is known as cross-functional review:-)
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS <dbrungard@att.com>; Wijnen,
> Bert (Bert)
> <bwijnen@lucent.com>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; Lou Berger
> <lberger@movaz.com>
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Date: 18 November 2003 23:10
> Subject: RE: Taking to the
> list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
>
>
> >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)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>