Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:08:01 -0600

Normally the open maximum size is used to indicate that entries can use
any index number, it does not indicate the maximum size, It means 2^32
-1 really indicates that the size is vendor dependent. Whatever value is
good in size today it might not be for a different size product ( e.g.
consider DHCP leases for a home residential gateway vs a ISP DHCP
server) what is the index boundary ? 

Product specifications should be the ones to carry MAX physical table
sizes not the MIB specification though.

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:00 PM
To: Sumanth Channabasappa; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Sumanth,

Regarding item #1...

Are MTAs really required to store 2^31 events?  That seems like a lot.
I'd be surprised that an MTA has that much memory. 

If it can store 2^31 events, I suppose throttling isn't as important.
Otherwise, assuming memory is much more limited, I would think the
ability to throttle is desirable.  Having a separate object to control
local throttling seems OK to me.

greg  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Folks,

I haven't received any comments on the clarifications requested (dated
10/07, enclosed in this email). Can I assume acceptance (status quo) on
#1 and #2? 

Other than the clarifications, I am planning to check with the
co-authors (and others in IPCDN) about Greg's comments regarding the MIB
structure not conforming to the recommendations of RFC4181. The rest I
believe, have been addressed as recommended.

Pending any other last minute comments, I plan to submit draft-05 by the
end of this work-week (to meet the deadline).

- S

-----Original Message-----
From: Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:21 PM
To: Eugene Nechamkin; Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Greg, Randy, Eugene,

Thanks for the comments. A few clarifications inline:

#1:
- The description makes mention of throttling events using SNMP and
Syslog.  What about the local log?  Are events written to the local log
not subject to throttling?  
[s] The objective of the MIB Objects belonging to 'pktcDevEventThrottle'
was to limit the throttling of events to the network (esp. in
power-up-after-a-blackout scenario), not locally.

Regarding local logging of events:
- the MTAs are currently required to store 2^31 events (in the local
log) and if we have questions regarding the size we should change the
index value 'pktcDevEvLogIndex' (suggestions anyone, MTA vendors?)

- Further, if we want to throttle local logging, we should probably
define a new MIB Object for local events only (since the throttling
conditions would vary between network and local storage) - thoughts?

#2:
- pktcDevEventDescrText and pktcDevEventDescrClass - These objects are
read-write.  It seems odd to me that these objects would be writable.
Is it really intended that these are writable objects?
[s] Yes, this is intended since an operator could change the
'Description of an event' to better suit 'Operational specific values'
(via SNMP or by using the configuration file at bootstrapping time).
E.g. MSO XYZ could change a lengthy description such as 'Error in TFTP
response to the MTA due to XYZ' into a shortened string such as
'TFTP-ERR:XYZ'.

>>> FYI <<<
I am working on a couple of other comments, but the following (mostly
from Greg and some internal) have been incorporated as-is:

There are a number of places in the document that makes reference to
"PacketCable device".  Shouldn't this be "PacketCable or IPCablecom
device"?  Or more simply "MTA device".

The naming convention we've been using on other MIB modules in IPCDN
adds "-IETF-" to the module name to distinguish it from the
corresponding MIB module being developed in CableLabs.  So, it this
case, the MIB module name should be something like
"PKTC-IETF-EVENT-MIB".

I think the ORGANIZATION clause should be IPCDN rather than CableLabs.

The DESCRIPTION clause is missing the mandatory copyright notice.

pktcDevEnvetReportStatus - The last sentence of the DESCRIPTION clause
states "... Defined by PacketCable by default."  Should this just
PacketCable or PacketCable and IPCablecom.

pktcDevEvThrottleAdminStatus
- "A value of stopAtThreshold(3) causes event message transmission to
cease at the threshold, and not resume until directed to do so." How is
the device directed to resume sending event messages?

pktcDevEvThrottleInterval  - The DEFVAL clause should be on a separate
line for readability.

pktcDevEventDescrTable - Should the reference to "PacketCable" be
"PacketCable/IPCablecom"?

pktcDevEventDescrId - "The event identifier can either be PacketCable
defined or vendor-specific." Would be good to provide a reference to the
PacketCable spec where the events are defined.

pktcDevEventDescrReporting - Should define what each one of the bit
values mean.

pktcDevEvLogCorrelationId - "...per section 5.4.5 of [3]"  Reference [3]
doesn't exist in the references section.

pktcDevEvLogCorrelationId
     "This MIB Object contains the correlation ID 
     generated by the MTA during the initiation of the
     last provisioning flow, within or following which
     the event occurred. 
     For information on the generation of correlation ids,
     refer to the corresponding PacketCable/IPCableCom
     Device Provisioning specifications."

[PKT-SP-EVEMIB1.5] - There is an odd character after the "PacketCable"

Reference section - There are number of reference in the body of the
text that do not exist in the references section.  Need to make sure all
reference are cited.  The ones I found are PKT-SP-PROV, PKT-SP-MIB-MTA,
PKT-SP-MGCP, RFC3435, PKT-SP-CODEC, and RFC2119.

Security Considerations - Per the MIB Guidelines, need to explicit
discuss all MIB objects, even if to only state that there are no
security issues with the object.

- There is no MIB Object defined as 'pktcDevEventThrottle 3' (we have
MIB Objects for 2 and 4)

- The Reference in the description of the MIB Object
'pktcDevEvLogCorrelationId' seems to be out of place.

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:41:11 -0700

Hi -

If you really want to model log behaviour, I suggest using
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3014.txt or at least borrowing its
concepts.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
To: "Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179" <[email-masked]>; "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:00 PM
To: Sumanth Channabasappa; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Sumanth,

Regarding item #1...

greg  

-----Original Message-----

Folks,

- S

-----Original Message-----
From: Sumanth Channabasappa
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:21 PM
To: Eugene Nechamkin; Randy Presuhn; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Greg, Randy, Eugene,

#1:

#2: