Subject: RE: References to X.733 in Draft Documents.

From: "Ayers, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:27:54 -0600

> From: Rajesh Lalan [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
>           Almost all X.700 documents refer to X.721 for
> these enumerations.
>           Bottom line is,  please look at X.721,  cite it
> and try not to scramble the enumerations unless justified.
>

	We currently do not have access to X.721.  Even if we did, I would
not be comfortable making a requirement of matching enumerations with it.
The reason is that we would also need to leave space open in case
modifications are made to the existing model.  Our requirement is that the
model be mappable with the ITU model, not be the same as it, and I think I'd
be uncomfortable raising the stakes.

	With all that said, I think that it would be a good idea for the
numeric values in the final model to align with the ITU numeric values where
possible.

/|/|ike

---

From: Rajesh Lalan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:10:34 -0600

"Ayers, Mike" wrote:

>         We currently do not have access to X.721.

Sorry, I cannot provide you a copy of X.721, but anyone working with
X.733 and referencing it, should easily be able to access X.721.

> Even if we did, I would
> modifications are made to the existing model.

I agree this a good enough reason. ITU has a process for that as well (X.208)
but I would have to research it some more..., some other time.

> Our requirement is that the

Exactly what I am trying to say. The IETF model should be mappable, but
there is no reason to make this mapping more difficult than necessary.
If we have a good reason to make the IETF model different, that is OK,
we should not make the mapping  inconsistant because we did not
research the ITU model thoroughly.

I say this because some other snmpITUAlarm textual-conventions are NOT
resequenced,  example snmpITUProbCause,  This one is just bumped up
by one (one based as opposed to zero based) and a few new causes
were added at the end of the list.

The stuff  IETF puts out is generally taken as gospel in some parts.
We should'nt treat it lightly.

- Raj.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:37:42 +0100

>>>>> Rajesh Lalan writes:

Rajesh> Sorry, I cannot provide you a copy of X.721, but anyone
Rajesh> working with X.733 and referencing it, should easily be able
Rajesh> to access X.721.

No.

/js