Re: [EFM-OAM] Notes from yesterday's call
>>
>> Events. Lots of discussion on the events. First, we decided we need
>> to have counters for the number of events, not just for the number of
>> event PDUs (each PDU can contain multiple events of different types).
>> Second, are unconfortable with the current C30 handling for events,
>> where the latest received event info is an attribute. Given that this
>> information can change multiple times per second, its quite possible
>> that the changes would be missed. So it was suggested that instead of
>> keeping the latest PDU info, we should only keep counters. Seemed
>> like people wanted to think a little bit about that one.
>
>
> Did anyone bring up Jonathon Thatcher's parallel counter idea (keeps a
> running count, overflowing) from his comments on D1.3? Discussion was
> on the reflector in late February 2003. Seems that could be a way to
> maintain an accurate total count if we think we might miss an update,
> but maybe I'm misinterpreting the concern above?
>
>
The suggestion was to add counters. I forget Jonathan's exact previous
comment, but the point brought up on the call was that we cannot expect
to reliably pass up the content of all events though Clause30. Given
that they're unreliable, shouldn't we have a counter (in addition or
instead)? Since the method is unreliable, should we have it at all?
- Matt