Re: Alarm MIB Issue - value 158 (Was: RE: ITU-T SG4 Liason)

Hi -

...
> I do not understand the claim that the ITU folks are making.
> We never committed to build in this MIB a perfect replica of
> the ITU mapping. We certainly aimed to be as close as possible
> to the ITU specs, but this was not the higher priority goal.

I think there is no issue there.

> I think that your answer to them did not make this point clear
> enough, as they continue to talk about 'ITU-T semantics'  being
> 'the most important aspect to retain'.

Uh, have you seen some messages that I haven't?

> Anyway, I do not think that there is a problem in this
> specific case. It looks like the  comment in the text before
> value 158 is supposed to describe the meaning, which seems
> to conform to 'reinitialized' . Maybe the placement of the
> comment is confusing. I do not have right now access to the
> ITU specs, but Sharon can confirm (or inform) my assumptions.
...

I'm curious why this particular one ended up with a different
name than they were expecting.  Once that's all cleared up, I
can send them a summary so we'll have this off our plate.

Randy