Subject: (FRNETMIB) FR SLA MIB - Issue 8 - Different collection locations for single CtrlTable row

From: "Rehbehn, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:27:54 -0400

> > 8) Different collection location types are allowed for delay
> > measurement and
> > delivery measurement on the SAME sample - why?  This just adds more
> > complexity.
> 
> Delay and data calculations can be calculated with different
> mechanisms.  Forcing only one location limits the ability to capture
> all existing low level implementations.  I know of implementations
> that can separate the collection locations.  Restricting this would
> mean forcing an implementation on existing vendors,  violate a goal of
> the document, and reduce the general use of the MIB.

We have got to come up from the low level implementation.  Each SLM
implementation will have different approaches towards collecting this
information.  What we need from this MIB is a way to communicate the
resulting service level.  I would expect that a future FRF.OAM MIB would
carefully spell out how the FR SLA MIB would be supported by that particular
interface.

Restrict the reporting to the observed delay and loss.  It is not possible
to "configure" location nor is it important to the reporting of the SLA
information as location is a static component of the SLA legal agreement.
Hardly an object that needs to be captured in a MIB to control the NM
application or a device.  Now if you had said that there should be a policy
schema for FR SLA that would include a description of the measurement
location, then I would be in agreement!
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe frnetmib' in the body of the message.