[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: disman MIB Followup on gmpls-alarm-spec-
TO me this looks fine
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@movaz.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 30 januari 2004 16:01
> To: Tom Petch; Randy Presuhn
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: disman MIB Followup on gmpls-alarm-spec-
>
>
> Tom, (Randy)
>
> Thank you for providing this input. What we're
> looking for is a
> reference that provides enumerated values for alarms. The
> ITU specs that
> we found all provide text strings, which is what we're trying
> to avoid. It
> seems that the disman MIB provides exactly what we're looking for.
>
> Please let us know if our intended use of the values defined
> in the MIB
> makes sense from your (disman WG's) perspective, or if you
> recommend an
> alternate approach.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou
>
> PS The text in the new rev (submitted today) of the draft reads:
> [from:
> http://labn.net/docs/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt]
> 3.1.3. Error Codes and Values
>
> The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are
> the same as
> those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values
> for use with
> both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support
> alarm types defined by other standards.
>
> In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error
> Code uses
> the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms".
> The values
> used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for
> IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB].
>
> The error values field is carried in an object with the format:
> [from: rfc3473]
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Length | Class-Num (6) | C-Type (3) |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | IPv4 Error Node Address |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Flags | Error Code | Error Value |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | |
> ~ TLVs ~
> | |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
>
> At 10:20 AM 11/19/2003, Tom Petch wrote:
> >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)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
>