[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Non-member submission from ["Randy Presuhn" <email@example.com>] : Taking to the list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Non-member submission from ["Randy Presuhn" <email@example.com>] : Taking to the list:draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
- From: "Adrian Farrel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:08:41 -0000
- Reply-to: "Adrian Farrel" <email@example.com>
> Hi -
> > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: "Tom Petch" <email@example.com>; "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
> > Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Randy Presuhn" <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:59 AM
> > Subject: 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.
> Bert's summary is correct. Disman is wrapping up the discussion
> of the review comments on draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt,
> and has made no structural changes. There have been a lot
> of clarifications and some minor tweaks, such as handling of
> out-of-memory conditions, but nothing drastic.
> I think it would be very interesting to describe how alarm information
> communicated using the mechanisms described in
> would be represented in the alarm MIB. However, I do not think that
> it would make sense to wait for such an analysis to be completed
> before handing the alarm MIB to the IESG, particularly since the
> alarm report control document is in the RFC editor queue at this time.
> Comments on possible mappings between the ccamp alarms and
> the alarm MIB would be welcome on the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list,
> and would be taken into account when the time comes to revisit the
> alarm MIB, or, if there is sufficient need and support, as an extension
> model. Of course, actually chartering such work would be up to the AD.
> Randy Presuhn
> disman WG chair