Subject: Re: defects or failures (rfc2558 v GR-253)

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:03:20 -0500

At 04:07 PM 12/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Kaj,
>   I'm writing in the hopes that you could help clarify a confusing issue
>for me.  See below for the message I submitted to comp.dcom.cell-relay and
>comp.dcom.sdh-sonet.  Please advise.  Thanks.
>Best Regards,
>-Scott
>
>
>Scott Platenberg wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone provide some insight into the "defect" versus "failure" dilemna
> > when trying to resolve the SONET/SDH mib (RFC2558) with Bellcore's
> > GR-253-CORE specification?
> >
> > Both RFC2558 and GR-253-CORE describe a failure as a defect that lasts for
> > a time threshold (2.5 seconds).  GR-253 says that *failures* should be
> > retrievable or otherwise available via a user system interface.  However,
> > current-status mib variables in RFC2558 are described as the current
> > *defect* state.  The mib variables are obviously meant to be retrievable.
> > So should these variables represent the failure state (as implied by
> > GR-253) or should they represent the defect state (as described by
> > RFC2558)?

hi scott,
the status objects reflect the defects as stated by the description
clauses.

kaj

ps i copy this to the atommib wg discussion list which is the best place
to discuss these kind of issues. see 
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atommib-charter.html
to subscribe.

> >
> > All info/opinions appreciated - specific equipment examples a plus.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -splat

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies
Email  [email-masked]
Tel    732.758.5254
Fax    732.758.2269
Postal 331 Newman Springs Rd
        Red Bank, NJ 07701
        USA

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/