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

[Jing Qian <jing.qian@alcatel.com>]

I misunderstood the concept of OID for each OBJECT. Thank you all.

Jing

Martin Dubuc wrote:

> 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
> > >
begin:vcard 
n:Qian ;Jing 
tel;fax:(972)477-8017
tel;work:(972)477-2761
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:;Research & Innovation
adr:;;1000 Coit Rd.;Plano;TX;75075;
version:2.1
email;internet:jqian@usa.alcatel.com
title:Software Engineer - Core Routing
x-mozilla-cpt:;-13176
fn:Jing Qian
end:vcard