You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am looking to use the draft ietf-hardware model and have a couple of comments that I would like feedback on.
I think it would make sense to add a field to the component state called reason or something similar to hold the error message casing the state. i.e FPC 0 Major Errors. What do you think?
Also I do not see a alarm-state for green, or good. How should this be modelled?
Luke,
The authors of this model may not look at the git repo here, so you may want to drop a note on the IETF netmod working group mailer.
Cheers,
Einar
On Jul 14, 2017, 5:34 AM -0500, Luke Overend ***@***.***>, wrote:
I am looking to use the draft ietf-hardware model and have a couple of comments that I would like feedback on.
I think it would make sense to add a field to the component state called reason or something similar to hold the error message casing the state. i.e FPC 0 Major Errors. What do you think?
Also I do not see a alarm-state for green, or good. How should this be modelled?
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
I am looking to use the draft ietf-hardware model and have a couple of comments that I would like feedback on.
I think it would make sense to add a field to the component state called
reason
or something similar to hold the error message casing the state. i.eFPC 0 Major Errors
. What do you think?Also I do not see a
alarm-state
for green, or good. How should this be modelled?@wlupton I guess this is a question for you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: