Subject: RE: [Disman] Technical changes to alarm MIB notification types

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:35:38 -0400

Hi

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-63. Assuming no objection,
this item will is closed with no changes to the draft.

There has been no response to Randy's call for comments on this change.
While all non-editorial changes at this point should be considered
'significant', the throttling changes made to these notifications follows
the best practice as outlined in the MIB review guidelines. 

The names, while goofy, are descriptive. They are the best we currently
have.

Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:00 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: [Disman] Technical changes to alarm MIB notification types

Hi -

WG chair hat on...

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn" 
> <[email-masked]>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
<[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:34 AM
> Subject: [Disman] RE: Comments on draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-14.txt

...
> 63) alarmActiveState, alarmClearState: the names for these notifications
>     aren't terribly good. more importantly, something needs to be said
>     about throttling per draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt
>     section 4.7 last paragraph, perhaps simply to the effect that these
>     are "second order" notifications that rely on lower-level throttling
>     and filter specification.
>
> Sharon->I did this more in line with the examples in the review 
> Sharon->guidelines.
...

There are some pretty significant changes to the definitions of these two
notification types appearing with the -15-draft.  I'd like to get a sense of
the working group that this particular approach to notification throttling
is appropriate for this MIB module.  I'd like to hear from those who think
this type of throttling is appropriate in this case, as well as from those
who would prefer something else.

As technical contributor: I still think "alarmActiveState" and
"alarmClearState" are lousy names for notifications, and would prefer to
*not* do throttling at this layer, but rather higher or lower in the
processing stream.

Randy

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:35:38 -0400

Hi

Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 1:00 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: [Disman] Technical changes to alarm MIB notification types

Hi -

WG chair hat on...

<[email-masked]>

...
...

Randy