Subject: RE: dynamic text string in alarms (was Re: disman alarm mib comme nts)

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:03:31 -0500

hi

I agree that simple managers have different requirements
than more complicated ones and that it is worth noting
the differences. What I'm wondering though, is if managers
that are so simple that they can only display the content
of the trap, and preferably in a zero-processing format
like display strings, are they actually smart enough to
do alarm management? Are these simple managers able to
process alarm set/raise and clear to maintain proper 
alarm state?

I'm trying to think back to all the notification and
alarm handling systems I've seen. I can't remember
any that were really simple, but still able to handle
alarms. Are there such systems? 

Also, Is it possible to create such a system? Keep in
mind that alarms are cleared on a per-instance basis.
This means that the manager needs to know that the
alarm clear notification relates specifically to
the alarm and resource specified in the alarm set/raise
notification. Are these managers using the displayString
to match the resources?

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: David Partain [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:24 AM
To: DISMAN Mailing List
Subject: dynamic text string in alarms (was Re: disman alarm mib
comments)
<clip>

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:17:18 +0100

Hi,

Sharon wrote:

> I agree that simple managers

The "simple manager" is a person.

> have different requirements

Again, the text string is not for application or machine
consumption.  It's for a human sitting in front of a screen.
Even if it's not my job of choice, there are people who do just
that - sit in front of a machine watching incoming alarms and
reacting as a human would.

The applications and alarm processing require the other
stuff that's already there.  The text string is complementary
information, not a replacement.

Cheers,

dlp