Subject: RE: Comments on the Analysis of Alarm MIBs

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:12:12 -0800

HI,

Please note that the Notification LOG MIB defined in RFC 3014
has many problems. Assuming that it is correct and basing
work on it, I believe, is a mistake.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

At 08:57 AM 2/28/2001 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

>hi
>
>I think what we are starting to talk about here is both
>real-time fault and historical fault.  A cleared alarm
>log can easily be added to any of the proposed solutions,
>but we likely want to
>        1) Make sure we agree historical fault is a requirement
>        2) We consider the overlap with the Notification log MIB
>
>Sharon

---

From: Ramanathan Kavasseri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:12:19 -0800

David,

please list the problems you are concerned with in the log MIB,
especially
those that may adversely affect Sharon's Alarm MIB proposal, plus any
solutions you may have. I'd like to keep track of them and make sure
they're addressed when the time comes to update the MIB. Also, while
there
are some pieces of rfc3014 that may be broken, it would be good to
have future work extend the working pieces of the notif-log-mib, rather
than invent a new logging mechanism...

I know one of the issues you raised is the way rfc3014 handles
discriminated unions...
What are the others that concern you?

Ram