RE: draft-ietf-disman-conditionmib

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

> >But... it is not JUST Boilerplate !!!
> >I did (and normally always do) ask them to be specific and explain
> >what the vulnerabilities are and I think they did. They have in the
> >security section:
> >
> >   network operations.  These are the tables and objects and their
> >   sensitivity/vulnerability:
> >
> >      arcTITimeInterval,
> >      arcCDTimeInterval,
> >      arcState,
> >      arcNalmTimeRemaining,
> >      arcRowStatus,
> >      arcStorageType.
> >
> >   Setting these objects may have disruptive effects on network
> >   operation that range from omission of alarm notifications
> >   to flooding of unwanted alarm notifications from the netowrk.
> >
> >Maybe you do not find that detailed/speciifc enough?
> >But I am not sure we want them to go into detail about specific
> >alarms, cause this table is a generic table.
> 
> You are right about the boilerplate.  But, it is quite generic.
> I realize that is because the alarms are not defined here. 
> However, the "omission of alarm notifications" is obvious.
> That is what the whole document is describing.  The consequence of
> masking the alarms is that important 
> diagnostic information is suppressed.  And, that is not said.
> 
Not sure I am getting you. WOuld you consider this better:

   Setting these objects may have disruptive effects on network
   operation that range from omission of alarm notifications,
   to masking of alarm notifications to flooding of unwanted
   alarm notifications from the network.

Not sure the WG agrees, but I can check.
Or do you have a better wording proposal.

Bert
> Russ
>