Subject: 2001-08-28 disman teleconference notes

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:09:25 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

As announced earlier on this list, at 08:00 Pacific time on
2001-08-28 there was a one-hour conference call to discuss
the disman alarm work.  The participants were Sharon Chisholm
(who kindly provided the conference call facility), An-ni
Huynh, Dan Romascanu, David Perkins, and Randy Presuhn.

Here are my notes.  Corrections and comments are welcome.

Sharon reviewed the status of the active alarm MIB.  There is
a list of edits to be done, and Dave Perkins will be providing
Sharon with a marked-up hardcopy with additional comments.

The discussion of the relationship with the condition MIB ended
up with the decision to move the "big picture" architecture
showing the use of the ARC/condition MIB with the active
alarm MIB to an example (non-normative) in an appendix of
the active alarm MIB document.  Action items:

An-ni raised the question of whether condition profiles (based
on the comments from Tammy Ferris) were too vendor-specific.
Several believed that they were of clear value, but were
uncertain whether they could be done generically.  Discussion
will be needed on the list; if we do them, they'd go into
the ARC/condition document.

David brought up the question of increasing the level of
abstraction, as has been the focus in snmpconf.  The sense
of those on the call was alarms have not diversified to the
point where this added complexity would be necessary.

The terminology issues were briefly revisited; Randy will
post some comments to the mailing list, and Dave will quote
relevant passages from the Telcordia specifications.

We reviewed the London discussion regarding the shared textual
conventions (e.g. probable cause codes) that would be handed
off to IANA.  The IANA considerations section needs to be
very clear on how the M.3100 range is handled, so that if
new M.3100 assignments are made, the same code values will
be available in our TC.

The issues of the indexing of active alarms were reviewed:
    - syntax of the index itself; Dan will be meeting with
      his developers to find out why the like TimeFilter
    - synchronizing systems; Sharon will review the recent
      thread on the mailing list on this topic
    - any additional requirements / benefits for tracking
      formerly active (cleared) alarms
    - sorting out the pros and cons of associating active
      alarm entries to log records

A follow-up conference call has been tentatively scheduled
for 0800 PDT on Monday, 2001-09-10.  Sharon will post details
to the WG mailing list.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tammy Ferris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:46:06 -0500

All,

I apologize that I could not be at the meeting.  I was in a
different standards meetings (I guess a sign that my life is full
;) ).  I hope to attend the next one, but in the meantime wanted to
provide some feedback regarding condition profiles.

My experience has been, although not mine alone as just this week
this came up and there was agreement amongst the group... that the
default severity values are condition and equipment specific.
However, the ability to make modifications to those values is
necessary and generic.  Please see alarmSeverityAssignmentProfile
object class definition in M.3100.

I would like to see compatability between the ITU models and the
IETF models in this matter.

I hope I understood the issue.  If not, maybe some further
clarification of the remaining questions could be provided so that
additional feedback can be given.

Cheers.
Tammy