RE: Question in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt

["Martin Dubuc" <Martin.Dubuc@meriton.com>]

Jing,

For the case of lmpControlChannelUp and lmpControlChannelDown, the CCID is part of the lmpCcAdminStatus OID and lmpCcOperStatus OID. So there is no need for a separate object in the notification. However, for the lmpDataLinkPropertyMismatch and lmpTeLinkDegraded notifications, there are no other object that contain the id of the data-bearing link or TE link, so this is why they are defined explicitly in the notification.

The reason we have a lmpControlChannelUp and lmpControlChannelDown instead of just one notification lmpControlChannelChange is to model the control channel status change similar to interface status change as defined in the IF-MIB which has a linkUp and linkDown trap. It could be done either way.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Jing Qian [mailto:jing.qian@alcatel.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:21 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Martin Dubuc; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt


Hi, Bert

Did you mean OID is automatically as part of the trap message payload?
If in this case, why all the other trap still put the OID in the OBJECT
part?
For example, in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt:
        lmpDataLinkPropertyMismatch NOTIFICATION-TYPE
           OBJECTS       { ifIndex,
                                         lmpDataLinkRemoteIfId }
        lmpTeLinkDegraded NOTIFICATION-TYPE
           OBJECTS       { ifIndex }

Also, why need lmpCcOperStatus for lmpControlChannelUp and
lmpControlChannelDown? The trap message name already define
the lmpCcOperStatus.

Regards,

Jing


"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:

> If you send the AdminStatus and OperStatus, then
> ythe CcId comes automatically as part of the OID
> (namely the index part).
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jing Qian [mailto:jing.qian@alcatel.com]
> > Sent: vrijdag 19 juli 2002 17:36
> > To: martin.dubuc@meriton.com
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Question in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Dubuc:
> >
> > A small question:
> >
> > In  draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-02.txt and
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt,
> >
> > lmpControlChannelUp NOTIFICATION-TYPE
> >    OBJECTS       { lmpCcAdminStatus, lmpCcOperStatus }
> > lmpControlChannelDown NOTIFICATION-TYPE
> >    OBJECTS       { lmpCcAdminStatus, lmpCcOperStatus }
> >
> > In draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-01.txt:
> > lmpControlChannelUp NOTIFICATION-TYPE
> >    OBJECTS       { lmpCcId }
> > lmpControlChannelDown NOTIFICATION-TYPE
> >    OBJECTS       { lmpCcId }
> >
> > Is this a type mistake in draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-02.txt and
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-03.txt? Since there are multiple control
> > channels in one node, lmpCcId as an OBJECTS makes more sense to me.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jing Qian
> >