PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Alert table thoughts

PMP Mail Archive: Re: PMP> Alert table thoughts

Re: PMP> Alert table thoughts

Bill Wagner (
Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:58:36 -0500

Matt brings up some good points. Since a Spring storm has closed the
airport here, I offer some comments on the wire.

When it was coverOpen(3) (Open, adj. describing state of cover), it made
sense to put one alert in the alert table when it opened and remove it
when it closed. I never did understand why there was a coverClosed(4).

With coverOpened(3) (Opened, verb describing the leading edge action) it
is implied that it will be followed by a coverClosed(4).

If this is the case is coverOpen(ed) a binary alert and coverClosed a
unary one? Is this waht we want?
English is an imprecise language, and we cannot rely unpon subtileties
to define what we mean. 'Open' can also be a verb; and 'opened' can be
a gerundive (adjective derived from the past participle, as in an
opened can of worms). If we want binary and unary events to be
implemented consistently, we must explicitly state how each event is
to be treated. My own feeling is that an open cover reflects a state
of the printer that should be handled as a binary consiiton. Cover
closed might be a optional unary event, but seems superfluous. But, if
we do indeed need consistency (I am ambivalent on this), how the MIB
defines events is less important than that it defines them.

2) In the internet-draft, the section that talks about the alert table
has a paragraph that talks about unary alerts (included for reference).
The paragraph gives an example of a unary alert then goes on to talk
about not knowing when to remove unary alerts from the table. The
clarification I am adding talks about multiple unary alerts of the same
type on the same subunit replacing each other. This makes the example
not demonstrate waht it was intended to do. What do you guys think?

I find the paragraph in the draft useful, if a bit chatty. I
am unsure about what is being clarified.

3) The title of section is "Alert Tables". The title of
section is "Alert Table Management". Both sections talk about
a single table. Any idea why the plurality?
I do not think there was any specific significance intended in Alert
Tables rather than Alert Table. If people find the plurality
confusing, it should be changed to Alert Table.

Bill Wagner