Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:36 -0500

Hi

The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-65  Assuming no objection,
this item will be considered closed conditional on the proposed edit being
done.

In section 4.1.1 replace

"  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
   modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
   corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
   specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
   alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
   the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
   table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
   alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
   the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
   corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
   alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
   the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
   corresponding to this particular alarm instance.

   Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
   either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables."

With

"  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
   modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
   corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
   specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
   alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
   the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
   table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
   alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
   the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
   corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
   alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
   the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
   corresponding to this particular alarm instance.

   In the case of the ITU Alarm MIB, for each row in the
   alarm model table there is one row in the ITU alarm model table.

   Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
   either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables. As the alarm model table only
   provides a mechanism to point at one specific alarm model, 
   additional specific models SHOULD define another mechanism to map
   from the generic alarm model to the additional model."

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:06 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

Though the final resolution of this will probably depend on 69-1, I do have
a question / comment on this proposed change below.

> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in 
> draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt
>

> Hi
>
> The following is the proposed resolution to Randy-65  Assuming no 
> objection, this item will be considered closed conditional on the 
> proposed edit being done.
>
> In section 4.1.1 replace
>
> "  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
>    modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
>    corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
>    specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
>    alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
>    the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
>    table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
>    alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
>    the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
>    corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
>    alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
>    the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
>    corresponding to this particular alarm instance.
>
>    Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
>    either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables."
>
> With
>
> "  The relationship between the Alarm MIB and the other alarm model MIB
>    modules is expressed by the following: The alarmModelTable has a
>    corresponding table in the specific MIB. For each row in the
>    specific MIB alarm model table there is one row in the
>    alarmModelTable. The alarmActiveTable has a corresponding table in
>    the specific MIBs. For each row in the specific MIB active alarm
>    table, there is one row in the alarmActiveTable. The
>    alarmModelSpecificPointer object in the alarmModelTable points to
>    the specific model entry in an extended alarm model table
>    corresponding to this particular alarm.  The
>    alarmActiveSpecificPointer object in the alarmActiveTable points to
>    the specific active alarm entry in an extended active alarm table
>    corresponding to this particular alarm instance.
>
>    In the case of the ITU Alarm MIB, for each row in the
>    alarm model table there is one row in the ITU alarm model table.

If a system supports both the ITU alarm MIB and some
other alarm extension MIB, then for a given entry in the alarmModelTable
there will be:
    (a) an entry in the ITU alarm MIB, and no entry in the other extension
MIB
    (b) an entry in both MIBs' tables

I believe the proposed text preclude the third possibility
    (c) an entry in the other extension MIB, but not in the ITU alarm MIB.

The upshot of this, I believe, is that only extension models corresponding
to the ITU alarm model could be defined.  I don't think that this was quite
what we meant to do.

>    Additional extensions can be defined by defining an AUGEMENTATION of
>    either the Alarm or ITU Alarm tables. As the alarm model table only
>    provides a mechanism to point at one specific alarm model,
>    additional specific models SHOULD define another mechanism to map
>    from the generic alarm model to the additional model."
...

I think that the the semantics of augmenting the Alarm table would be
different from the semantics of augmenting the ITU alarm table, and that we
shouldn't confuse the two cases.

Randy

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:42:36 -0500

Hi

In section 4.1.1 replace

With

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:06 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

...

Randy

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:40:19 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Hi -

I think this is much clearer, though one sentence isn't always true:

This sentence is false for rows in the alarmModelTable where the
value of the last index is greater than six.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Chisholm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Nov 11, 2003 1:42 PM
To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi

In section 4.1.1 replace

With

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:06 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

...

Randy

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:40:19 -0600 (GMT-06:00)

Hi -

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharon Chisholm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Nov 11, 2003 1:42 PM
To: "Disman (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi

In section 4.1.1 replace

With

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:06 AM
To: Disman (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

Hi -

...

Randy

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:39:05 +0200

Correct, this sentence needs to be stroke out. Regards, Dan

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On 
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 12 November, 2003 5:40 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:39:05 +0200

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:58:43 -0500

Hi

In section 4.1.1 replace

With

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:39 PM
To: Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Disman] Section 5.1 in draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-15.txt

> This sentence is false for rows in the alarmModelTable where the value 
> of the last index is greater than six.
> 
> Randy
> 
> different from the semantics of augmenting the ITU alarm table, and 
> that we shouldn't confuse the two cases.
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:58:43 -0500

Hi

In section 4.1.1 replace

With

Sharon