Re: Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples

Hi

This update was just intended to clarify for the first issue raised
about the errata text and covers the two changes listed below. I planned
a separate email on the other issues, but here is a sneak peak.

We could have used named lists when we did the examples, but we didn't.
I don't think it's that difficult for people to imagine where the list
name would fit in, but I suspect people could easily mess up not having
a list name had we chosen to include one in the examples. Since each
change to the document risks introducing new errors, my preference is to
leave the examples without a named list.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thatcher [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:56 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Disman] Alarm MIB Errata - Issues 1 - Alarm Examples

Is there a reason why no value is given for alarmList name  and that
ituAlarmGenericModel does not include all the indices defined for
alarmModelEntry?  The description should at least acknowlege the index
existence and indicate why it is are not used in the example.

mike thatcher

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> Hi
>
> Attached is what I would expect the example section to look like after

> executing errata related to the first issue from the consolidated list

> I sent out a while back. Note the changes are marked. It consists of=20
> two general changes to the original document
>
> 1. replace ituPerceivedSeverity with ituAlarmPerceivedSeverity since=20
> the former is the name of the textual convention, not the object
>
> 2. update the numbers of the alarmModelState, as appropriate. If my=20
> memory is to be believed, I think originally the only criteria on the=20
> mapping from alarmModelState to ituPerceivedSeverity was that the=20
> numbers in alarmModelState got bigger as things got worse. This is=20
> what was done in the examples. At some point we introduced a more=20
> prescriptive mapping and the examples were not updated to reflect
this.
>
> If this makes sense to everyone, then I think the next step is to=20
> ensure we have an unambiguous way to express this for the errata.
>
> Sharon Chisholm
> Nortel
> Ottawa, Ontario
> Canada
>  =20