Subject: [ippm] RE: [RMONMIB] draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-05.txt

From: STEPHAN Emile FTRD/DAC/LAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:24:25 +0200

hi all,

The ippm mib has such a field too. It is a good idea to define a common one.

The first one may be other(0)to permit customization or new one (eg:
ethersync) to be added.

as far as I am concern that point may be added in the RMON framework effort.

regards
Emile

   ippmSystemSynchonizationType OBJECT-TYPE 
        SYNTAX INTEGER  { 
                other(0), 
                ntp(1), 
                gps(2), 
                cdma(4) 
        } 
        MAX-ACCESS read-only 
        STATUS     current 
        DESCRIPTION 
                "ippmSystemSynchonizationType describes the mechanism  
                used to synchronise the system.  
                 
                other  
                        The synchronisation process must be defined  
                extensively in the ippmSystemSynchonizationDescription.  
                 
                ntp  
                       The system is synchronised using the network  
                time protocol. The NTP synchronisation must be described  
                finely in the ippmSystemSynchonizationDescription.  
                 
                gps  
                       The system is synchronised using the GPS clocks.  
                 
                cdma  
                       The system is synchronised using the CDMA 
                clocks.      
                " 
        ::= { ippmSystemGroup 2 } 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Carl W. Kalbfleisch [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : mercredi 10 avril 2002 14:40
À : Lester D'Souza
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [RMONMIB] draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-05.txt

Lester D'Souza wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 1. Can we have the same enumeration for the ClockSource in both TPM  and
> SSPM mibs.
> 
> >tpmClockSource OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { local (1), other (2), manual
> (3), gps (4), ntp (5) }
> >sspmClockSource OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { other (1), manual (2), gps
> (3), ntp (4) }
> 

I beleive it was agreed at the WG meeting (based on the minutes) to
define this TC somewhere. It is needed by SSPM and TPM which both rely
on APM. So it could be defined in APM so that both SSPM and TPM can use
it without introducing a dependency of one of these two on the other.

Thoughts?

Carl

-- 
Carl W. Kalbfleisch
NTT/VERIO
www.nttverio.com

_______________________________________________
RMONMIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmonmib