Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (2)

RFC 4268, "Entity State MIB", November 2005

Errata ID: 2611
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mark Ellison
Date Reported: 2010-11-06
Verifier Name: Dan Romascanu
Date Verified: 2010-11-23

Section 5 says:

   entStateOperEnabled NOTIFICATION-TYPE
.
.
.
               ...to find out whether
               there were any known alarms against the entity at that
               time that may explain why the physical entity has become
               operationally disabled."
     ::= { entStateNotifications 1 }

   entStateOperDisabled NOTIFICATION-TYPE
.
.
.
               ...to find out whether
               there were any known alarms against the entity at that
               time that may affect the physical entity's
               ability to stay operationally enabled."
     ::= { entStateNotifications 2 }

It should say:

   entStateOperEnabled NOTIFICATION-TYPE
.
.
.
               ...to find out whether
               there were any known alarms against the entity at that
               time that may affect the physical entity's
               ability to stay operationally enabled."
     ::= { entStateNotifications 1 }

   entStateOperDisabled NOTIFICATION-TYPE
.
.
.
               ...to find out whether
               there were any known alarms against the entity at that
               time that may explain why the physical entity has become
               operationally disabled."
     ::= { entStateNotifications 2 }

Notes:

It appears that the text was inadvertently swapped in the DESCRIPTION clauses for the ~Enabled and ~Disabled notification definitions.

Errata ID: 826
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2005-12-20

(1)

In the CONTACT-INFO clauses of both MODULE-IDENTITY instances
(page 6 and page 10), apparently a text line (between the two
HTTP URIs given) has been blanked out inadvertently; usually,
        "Working Group Charter:"
appears at similar places in other MIB definitions.


(2) [typo]

The DESCRIPTION clause of the EntityAlarmStatus TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
declaration contains a funny 'byte twist'.
 It says (near the middle of page 8):

       When the 'value of underRepair' is set, the resource is
       currently being repaired, ...

It should say:

       When the value of 'underRepair' is set, the resource is
       currently being repaired, ...


(3) 
In the DESCRIPTION clause of the entStateAdmin OBJECT-TYPE says:

    Setting this object to 'notSupported' will result in an 'inconsistentValue' error. [...]

It should say:

    Setting this object to 'unknown' will result in an 'inconsistentValue' error. [...]

Notes:


    This is inconsistent with the value range for the EntityAdminState
    TEXTUAL-CONVENTION describing the syntax of this object.
    (Perhaps there's some history behind the scene.)

(4) [typo/grammar]

The fourth paragraph of the DESCRIPTION clause of the entStateOper
OBJECT-TYPE, 10 text lines from the bottom of page 12, says:

       A value of 'testing' means that entity currently being
       tested and cannot therefore report whether it is
       operational or not.

It should perhaps better say:
                                                       vvvv
       A value of 'testing' means that entity currently is
       being tested and cannot therefore report whether it
       is operational or not.


(5) [editing omission?]

The DESCRIPTION clause of the entStateStandby OBJECT-TYPE, near
mid-page 14, says:

       Some entities will exhibit only a subset of the
       remaining standby state values.  [...]
       ^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps this text has been 'cloned' without full adaptation.
Since, in this case, no possible value of the object has been
excluded by the text, the word "remaining" is inappropriate in
this context.  Therefore, this clause should better say:

       Some entities will exhibit only a subset of the
       standby state values.  [...]


(6) + (7)  [typo/grammar]

The second paragraph of the DESCRIPTION clause of each of the
two NOTIFICATION-TYPE declarations, near the bottom of page 14
and near the top of page 15, contains the sentence:

       The entity this notification refers can be identified by
       extracting the entPhysicalIndex from one of the
       variable bindings.  [...]

Preferrably, this sentence should better say (in both instances):

                                          vvvv
       The entity this notification refers to can be identified
       by extracting the entPhysicalIndex from one of the
       variable bindings.  [...]    

It should say:

[see above]       

Notes:

from pending

Report New Errata