From mflacy@verizon.net Sat Jan 29 14:19:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: disman@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: disman@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153483A6894 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:19:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXdi0UuF6e+v for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from vms173013pub.verizon.net (vms173013pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9543A6890 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from flacy ([unknown] [173.74.205.75]) by vms173013.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0LFT00IXT24N7W81@vms173013.mailsrvcs.net> for disman@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:21:59 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:21:59 -0600 From: "Mark A. Flacy" To: disman@ietf.org X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.8 Message-id: <1296339719.32535.0@flacy> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Disman] RFC 3877 and IPv6 X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: mflacy@verizon.net List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:19:03 -0000 Greetings, In the version of RFC 3877 available at datatracker.ietf.org, I noticed =20 that the alarmActiveVariableValueType does not include either =20 InetAddressType or InetAddress in the enumeration which does not allow =20 you to indicate an IPv6 address in the alarmActiveVariableTable. The =20 alarmActiveEngineAddress is expressed according to RFC 2851, so that is =20 not a problem. Will alarmActiveVariableValueType be extended to include =20 InetAddressType and InetAddress (along with matching =20 alarmActiveVariableInetAddressTypeVal and =20 alarmActiveVariableInetAddressVal objects in AlarmActiveVariableEntry)? Is there a recommended work-around? Thank you! --=20 Mark A. Flacy From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon Jan 31 00:14:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: disman@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: disman@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CAB3A6BAB for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:14:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s0++HgRXx3Ru for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:14:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A547D3A6BB5 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0592BC001F; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:17:28 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id av7N22dWhJ7r; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:17:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E44C0003; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:17:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id BC4231633CFA; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:17:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:17:15 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Mark A. Flacy" Message-ID: <20110131081715.GB260@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "Mark A. Flacy" , disman@ietf.org References: <1296339719.32535.0@flacy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1296339719.32535.0@flacy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: disman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Disman] RFC 3877 and IPv6 X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:14:16 -0000 On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 04:21:59PM -0600, Mark A. Flacy wrote: > Greetings, > > In the version of RFC 3877 available at datatracker.ietf.org, I > noticed that the alarmActiveVariableValueType does not include > either InetAddressType or InetAddress in the enumeration which does > not allow you to indicate an IPv6 address in the > alarmActiveVariableTable. The alarmActiveEngineAddress is expressed > according to RFC 2851, so that is not a problem. > > Will alarmActiveVariableValueType be extended to include > InetAddressType and InetAddress (along with matching > alarmActiveVariableInetAddressTypeVal and > alarmActiveVariableInetAddressVal objects in > AlarmActiveVariableEntry)? > Is there a recommended work-around? And InetAddress is encoded as an OCTET STRING and hence you should be fine using alarmActiveVariableOctetStringVal (and for the InetAddressType you would use alarmActiveVariableInteger32Val). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103