Subject: RE: Updated ITU Alarm IANA Textual Convention

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:16:14 +0200

> 	Hardly.  Consider:  potential implementors, if they 
> wish to use this
> MIB, will have a three-way choice.  One:  hammer their 
> proposed or existing
> implementation into the ITU model.  Two:  write a MIB which 
> contains their
> model and plugs into the Alarm MIB, then write the NMS support for it.
> Three:  use a proprietary solution.

> > 
> > 1. What features exactly do you feel are not being supported?
> 
> 	Alarm models other than ITU, for starters - at least not in any
> practical sense.
> 
Hi Mike,

Our proposal includes:
- a generic alarm model;
- a mechanism to attach 'plug-in' alarm model;
- the ITU alarm 'plug-in' 

The ITU Alarm model is - using your terminology - a plug-on into the Alarm
MIB. We find it useful, and many other seem to agree because of the wide
deployment of the ITU Alarms model. If other models than ITU are considered
to be useful, I see no reason why they should not be brought to the WG and
considered for standardization - if the WG such decides.

I hope that the London week will provide us the opportunity to sit and
discuss the existing model, what you think is missing and would be useful to
add.

Regards,

Dan