Subject: RE: [Disman] alarmActiveEngineAddress

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:00:40 -0400

Hi

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-58  Assuming no objection,
this item will be considered closed conditional on the proposed edit being
done.

In the description for alarmActiveEngineAddress, replace

       "The Address of the SNMP engine on which the alarm is
       occurring. This is used to identify the source of an SNMPv1
       trap, since an alarmActiveEngineId cannot be extracted from the
       SNMPv1 trap PDU.

       This object MUST always be instantiated, even if the list
       can contain alarms from only one engine.""

With

       "The address of the SNMP engine on which the alarm is
       occurring. 

       This object MUST always be instantiated, even if the list
       can contain alarms from only one engine."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:14 PM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] alarmActiveEngineAddress

Hi -

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:18 AM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] alarmActiveEngineAddress
...
> No change will be done to address the second observation. The Engine 
> ID object indicates that it identifies the source of the alarm and 
> this indicates it is used when that isn't available.
...

But that's not what the description says.

The sentence "This is used to identify the source of an SNMPv1 trap, since
an alarmActiveEngineId cannot be extracted from the SNMPv1 trap PDU."  is
still wrong.  Even if one has an EngineId, one *still* needs an address to
get there.

Proposed replacement: Delete the sentence.

Randy