RE: Syslog Protocol document and Alarm MIB
"Sharon Chisholm" <[email protected]> Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:19:54 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.disman |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B40B423BB5@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> |
Hi I actually drafted the initial version of text for this section, but of course, it would be good to get the views of the working group itself to ensure it makes sense. After my initial mapping, there was some working syslog working group discussion and some modifications were make. The problem is that a perfect mapping can't be made and so you have to decide which part of the mapping you are willing to less then ideal. Sharon=20 -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]=20 Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 7:02 AM To: Disman (E-mail) (E-mail) Subject: [Disman] Syslog Protocol document and Alarm MIB Since the Alarm MIB was done in this WG, you may want to take a look at section 6.2.1.1 of document=20 draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-17.txt It says: 6.2.1.1. Relation to Alarm MIB The Alarm MIB RFC3877 [11] defines ITU perceived severities which are useful to be able to relate to the syslog severities, particularly in the case where alarms are being logged. The ITUPerceivedSeverity corresponds to a syslog Severity as shown in table 2 below. ITU Perceived Severity syslog SEVERITY Critical Alert Major Critical Minor Error Warning Warning Indeterminate Notice Cleared Notice Table 3. ITUPerceivedSeverity to syslog SEVERITY mapping. I think this is OK. But wanted to make sure we have all had a chance to look at it and make a comment if you think it is not OK. Probably best to then also copy such comment to the [email protected] mailing list. Bert