Re: FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last callcomplete

Thanks Dan,

[Lou Berger copied on this email as Ed. of this draft]
[My DISMAN posting will probably bounce]-:

> I suggest the following changes:
>
>In Section 3.1.3
>
>OLD
>
>  In this document we define one new Error Code.  The Error Code uses
>   the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms".  The values
>   used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for
>   IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB].  Note these values
>   are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org.
>
>NEW:
>
>
>  In this document we define one new Error Code.  The Error Code uses
>   the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as " GMPLS Alarms".  The values
>   used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for
>   IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB].  Note these values
>   are managed by IANA, see the IANA Considerations Section

I see two changes.
1. "Alarms" --> "GMPLS Alarms"
I'm not sure why you propose this change. The alarms indicated are NOT GMPLS alarms. They
are Alarm MIB alarms indicated using GMPLS signaling. I presume that the Alarm MIB does
not refer to them as GMPLS Alarms.
2. Reference changed from URL to IANA Considerations Section
I have no strong feeling on this, but it seems to me that the IANA Considerations Section
is intended to list IANA actions for this draft, not to provide reference information for
the reader. I anything, I would tend to strike the whole sentence ["Note these..."] as
irrelevant.


>In the IANA Considerations Section:
>
>OLD:
>
>   Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code.  The Error Code
>   is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-
>   MIB].  The suggested Error code value is 28.
>
>NEW:
>
>Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code.  The Error Code
>   is "GMPLS Alarms" and uses Error Values similar to  IANAItuProbableCause
>   defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB].  The Error code value allocated by IANA
>   is TBD, see http://www.iana.org.

I see points:
1. Change of "Alarms" to "GMPLS Alarms". As above.
2. Addition of "similar to ...."
    This is good, but must use "which are the same as..."
3. Removal of suggested value.
   We MUST suggest a value to IANA. This is a complex code space and
   it is highly helpful to IANA that we suggest a value.
4. Reference to IANA URL. As before, this section is provided for IANA's
   benefit. So no URL is needed.


>In Section 6.1
>
>OLD:
>
>[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB",
>            draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004
>
>NEW:
>
>[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB",
>            RFC 3877, September 2004

Yup. We noticed that. Well done!

> What I suggest is to require from IANA a code value for 'GMPLS Alarms' , and then use
the text as suggested.

Thanks. Yes, we could do this, but have no need as the established procedures for managing
the RSVP code points are well understood by the community and by IANA. Thus, the actual
value will be supplied just prior to RFC Ed. If there is a need for resolution of this
particular value sooner than that, we will of course apply to IANA under the provisions of
draft-kompella-rsvp-change-02.txt

Cheers,
Adrian