Subject: RE: Doubling notifications

From: "Huynh, An-Ni (Anni)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:32:51 -0500

I totally agree with David that the first step is to define what is required
to
describe an alarm.

And thanks to David, Mike, and Juergen for clearly stating the problem of
managing alarms
in the SNMP framework.

Anni

> ----------
> From: 	David T. Perkins[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Thursday, March 01, 2001 3:09 PM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Subject: 	Re: Doubling notifications (was: RE: Comments on the
> Analysis of Alar m MIBs was: RE: Notifications != Alarms)
>
>
>
> What we need to do is figure out a way to specify definitions
> in the SNMP framework. This is not easy with the current SMI.
> The next version of the SMI will hopefully make this task
> easier. The specification for definitions of alarms must
> tell the alarm designer what attributes must be included
> in describing an alarm. What is required in specifying a
> notification type is insufficient for defining alarms.
>
> Deciding what is needed in describing alarms is the first step.
> Lets do that first.
>
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins