Subject: [Entmib] #310: Alarm State Issues

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:53:55 -0500

hi

<Sharon>
I'm fine with adding an 'underTest' bit. Building on what is there for
'underRepair' but fixing an odd typo and building on what Dave suggests
below, I propose the following
          " When no bits of this attribute are set, then there
            are no outstanding alarms against this resource and
            it is not under repair or test. If the value of under 
            repair is set, the resource is currently being repaired. 
            If the value of 'underTest' is set, then this resource
            is currently under test. If 'underTest' or 'underRepair' bits
            are set, depending on the implementation, may make the other 
            values in this bit string unreliable."

And in the description of the entStateAlarm object
	"If the value of the 'underTest' bit is set, then the entStateOper
       object MUST have a value of 'testing'."

</Sharon>      

David T. Perkins [[email-masked]]

" The resolution must include a value when the operState value is
'testing'. The resulting BITs should be something like:
unknown - status unknown (if set, then no other bits may be set)
underRepair - item under repair
underTest - item being tested
critial - one or more critical fault conditions present
major - one or more major fault conditions present
minor - one or more minor fault conditions present
warning - one or more warning fault conditions present
indeterminate - one or more indeterminate fault conditions 
present 
Note: when 'underRepair' or 'underTest' BITs are set, then
the manager should probably "discount" the importance
of any outstanding fault conditions
" 

Sharon Chisholm
Portfolio Integration
Nortel Networks
Ottawa, Canada

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib