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)
>> >
>> >
>>
>