Subject: RE: alarm mibs

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:08:31 -0400

hi

Good question.  Here is my understanding.  It will
be interesting to hear other's perspectives.

We had decided that alarms and conditions were different
things and could therefore both move forward as separate,
but related work.  We added condition management to the
requirements list, but there was not much discussion afterwards
as to whether or not we should be compliant against it.

I believe that Dave Perkins was considering transferring his efforts
into the condition management work along with Anni and the other
authors.  I might be wrong though.

Dan and I have put out a new ID for the Alarm MIB work which combined
the Alarm MIB and the ITU Alarm MIB into one document.  We have not
seen new IDs from the other parts of the problem space.

At least, that's the view from here ...

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl W. Kalbfleisch [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:51 AM
To: disman wg
Subject: alarm mibs

What is the status of the alarm MIB work? I see on the charter that
there is a decision point coming between the two proposals. Can someone
recap the current status of where this is at?

Carl

-- 
Carl W. Kalbfleisch
www.verio.net