Subject: RE: [Megaco] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt

From: Raphael Tryster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:33:11 +0200

Bala,

Here are some comments and questions about the new MIB draft.

1.	On page 7, "There would be one entry in this table and is indexed by
(medGwyGatewayId, medGwyGatewayLinkId)".  This sentence does not make sense
to me and looks like an editing error.

2.	"Even though gateways could share the signalling link, they could
have different IP Address and/or Port Number".  What is a signalling link if
not an IP address?  Is it an association between an MG and an MGC?  If so,
does that mean that if we are managing 5 MGCs, all of which are on the
primary or secondary list of each of 13 MGs, there will be 65 records in
medGwyGatewayConfigTable and 65 records in medGwyGatewayControllerTable?

3.	I see nothing in the MIB that identifies an MGC as being primary or
secondary for an MG.

4.	"Virtual MGs need not have to be represented as a separate entry in
this table (Subject for Discussion?)"  If not, then how are they identified?

5.	The description of medGwyGatewayConfigEntry says: "Entry holding
configuration information about a group of Media Gateway Controllers sharing
the same signaling link."  I think the word "Controllers" is an error
inherited from version 3.  Does it make sense to replace "Media Gateway
Controllers" with "virtual Media Gateways"?

6.	The description of medGwyGatewayControllerId says: "An unique
identification number that is assigned to the gateway controller by the
manager."  So why is it read-only?

7.	medGwyGatewayControllerAdminStatus is described as "The desired
state of the gateway".  Should that be "gateway controller"?

8.	Does medGwyTerminationInterfaceIdentifier on page 21 identify a
virtual MG?

Regards,

Raphael Tryster

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Balasubramanian Pitchandi [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Thursday, 03 October, 2002 10:32 PM
	To:	[email-masked]
	Subject:	RE: [Megaco] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt

	Folks,

	I finally have completed the new MIB draft. It is basically a
re-work of
	the old draft. So, I would like to have as much discussion as
possible
	on it to better refine it.

	I will submit two new drafts (draft-ietf-megaco-ringing-mib-00.txt &
	draft-ietf-megaco-pkgmibs-00.txt) which would cover the package MIBs
	within a week.

	The Summary of changes in brief:

	1. The old draft (draft-ietf-megaco-mib-03.txt) did not address how
	media gateways that are controlled by multiple media gateway
controllers
	would be configured. It is addressed in the new MIB draft.

	2. Added new MIB objects to configure the TCP/UDP Port number, the
	Signaling Transport Protocol and the Encoding Scheme that are to be
	configured per media gateway

	3. Added Administrative Status and Operational Status for the media
	gateways, media gateway controllers and the terminations in a media
	gateway

	4. Added a medGwyGatewayControllerId to uniquely identify each media
	gateway controller in the medGwyGatewayControllerTable.

	5. The old draft had ambiguities about what a link is and how a link
	could be used to manage multiple media gateways. It is clarified
clearly
	in the new draft.

	6. The sizes of some of the MIB objects were incorrect and I
corrected
	the sizes to the appropriate value. Changed the list of possible
values
	for many of the objects to reflect the appropriate meaning.

	7. Added rules that guide each of the table in the MIB that would
make
	clear how the tables are operated over when doing a SET/GET.

	8. Added two new Notifications to the MEGACO-MIB-NOTIFICATION that
were
	not there in the old draft.

	9. The old draft did not address the MIB Conformance section.
Created
	the conformance statements for the MIB and created the different
	conformance groups (mediaGateway, mediaGatewayController etc.) that
	vendors have to adhere to, when they release Megaco MIB Conformance
	Statements.

	10. The old draft did not address the Security Considerations for
the
	MIB. Added the Security Considerations (Section 3).

	11. Renamed the MIB to MEGACO-MIB and changed the corresponding
objects
	names appropriately. Rewritten all the MIB object descriptions
removing
	the discrepancies and ambiguities that were present in the old
draft.

	Your comments and questions are welcome.
	 
	Thanks,
	Bala

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:27:28 -0400

Raphael,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my responses below marked as [BP].

Thanks,

Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:33 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt

Bala, 

1.     On page 7, "There would be one entry in this table and is indexed
by  (medGwyGatewayId, medGwyGatewayLinkId)".  This sentence does not
make sense to me and looks like an editing error.

                        [BP] Yes, it is an editing error. I would
rephrase it in the next draft.

2.     "Even though gateways could share the signalling link, they could
have different IP Address and/or Port Number".  What is a signalling
link if not an IP address?  Is it an association between an MG and an
MGC?  If so, does that mean that if we are managing 5 MGCs, all of which
are on the primary or secondary list of each of 13 MGs, there will be 65
records in medGwyGatewayConfigTable and 65 records in
medGwyGatewayControllerTable?

                        [BP] Yes, there would be 65 different entries,
if each of the MG has a different logical IP address towards each of the
(different) MGC and vice versa. 

3.     I see nothing in the MIB that identifies an MGC as being primary
or secondary for an MG.

                        [BP] Good point. I would add a new object -
ControllerRole which would define that MGC as the primary or secondary
for the corresponding medGwyGatewayId

4.     "Virtual MGs need not have to be represented as a separate entry
in this table (Subject for Discussion?)"  If not, then how are they
identified?

                        [BP] Well, that's why I have a "Subject to
Discussion" note :-). I thought if we let the virtual MGs to be managed,
there would be too many entries in the table. Then again, there may be a
need for managing the virtual MGs separately. I am now inclined to
modify this to mean "Virtual MGs can also be represented as a separate
entry in this table". 

5.     The description of medGwyGatewayConfigEntry says: "Entry holding
configuration information about a group of Media Gateway Controllers
sharing the same signaling link."  I think the word "Controllers" is an
error inherited from version 3.  Does it make sense to replace "Media
Gateway Controllers" with "virtual Media Gateways"?

                         [BP] Yes, it would change it to "Media Gateways
(virtual Media Gateways, if applicable)"

                        [BP] That is a mistake. It should be
"not-accessible"

                        [BP] Yes. I would modify it.

                        [BP] Yes (as a follow-up of answer 4)

Regards, 

Raphael Tryster

---

From: "Balasubramanian Pitchandi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:27:28 -0400

Raphael,

Thanks,

Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 11:33 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Megaco] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt

Bala, 

Regards, 

Raphael Tryster