Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:32:50 -0400

Hi

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-65  Assuming no objection,
this item will be considered closed conditional on the proposed edit being
done.

In section 4.1.1 replace

"  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
   modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
   corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
   specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
   alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
   the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
   table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
   alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
   the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
   corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
   alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
   the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
   corresponding to this particular alarm instance.

   Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
   either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables."

With

"  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
   modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
   corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
   specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
   alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
   the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
   table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
   alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
   the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
   corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
   alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
   the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
   corresponding to this particular alarm instance.

   In the case of the ITU Alarm MIB, for each row in the
   alarm model table there is one row in the ITU alarm model table.

   Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
   either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables. As the alarm model table only
   provides a mechanism to point at one specific alarm model, 
   additional specific models SHOULD define another mechanism to map
   from the generic alarm model to the additional model."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:51 PM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:59 AM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in 
> draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt
>

> Hi
>
> For every A, there is a B. For every B there is an A. Therefore the # 
> of A = # of B. QED.
...

Wrong.  The current language says for every B there is an A.  It does NOT
say that for every A there is a B.  Furthermore, if it did, then only ONE
extension MIB could exist in a system, due to the way
alarmModelSpecificPointer works.  If someone defined a DMTF-ALARM-MIB, it
could not under your reasoning exist in a system that also supported the ITU
alarm stuff.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:05:53 -0700

Hi -

Though the final resolution of this will probably depend on 69-1, I
do have a question / comment on this proposed change below.

> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt
>

>    alarm model table there is one row in the ITU alarm model table.

If a system supports both the ITU alarm MIB and some
other alarm extension MIB, then for a given entry in the alarmModelTable
there will be:
    (a) an entry in the ITU alarm MIB, and no entry in the other extension MIB
    (b) an entry in both MIBs' tables

I believe the proposed text preclude the third possibility
    (c) an entry in the other extension MIB, but not in the ITU alarm MIB.

The upshot of this, I believe, is that only extension models corresponding
to the ITU alarm model could be defined.  I don't think that this was quite what
we meant to do.

...

I think that the the semantics of augmenting the Alarm table would be different
from the semantics of augmenting the ITU alarm table, and that we shouldn't
confuse the two cases.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:05:53 -0700

Hi -

...

Randy