Subject: Re: Use of alarmListName

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:19:07 -0700
> To: <[email-masked]>
> From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Use of alarmListName
> List-Id: IETF disman Working Group mailing list <disman.dorothy.bmc.com>
> 
> HI,
> 
> The alarm draft has the tables indexed by object alarmListName.
> 
> However, I cannot figure out how notifications are classified
> so that they use appropriate entries in tables based on the
> value of alarmListName. That is, what is the classifier from
> notifications to values of alarmListName? And how is this
> configured?
> 
> PS Randy - feel free to restate this as a clearer and simpler 
>    question.
...

I think alarmListName has nothing to do with alarm classification.

Here's a not-very-useful example of how I think it's supposed
to work. If I configure the same models under three different
alarmListNames, and if access control policy permits, then I
would expect that for any active alarm entry existing under
one of the alarmListNames, there should be corresponding
entries under both of the other alarmListNames.

In short, it's to support sandboxing the users of the
alarm facility.  One *could* in a really twisted way use it
for alarm classification (different models under different
alarmListNames corresponding to alarm classification), but
I don't think that that's the motivation for it.

(Of course, I could have completely misunderstood the
whole thing.  :-)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:16:53 -0700

HI,

I was first trying to get clarification on the "simpler" of the three
ways that alarms are defined. If this could be clarified, then
the other two ways might be obvious.

The first was via "existing" notifications. The second was via
the two new notifications (alarmActiveState and alarmClearState).
The third is via internal mechanisms (that is, alarmModelNotificationId
has the value { 0 0 }).

Did I get this correct?

One of the fundamental goals of the I-D appears to me to use the
existing notifications generated by a system, and to create a
system that mapped these existing notifications to alarm raises
(with configured severity) or to alarm clears.
How this is done doesn't seem complete to me. 

>(Of course, I could have completely misunderstood the

Regards,
/david t. perkins