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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 07:11:42 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Media Gateway Control Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Megaco MIB
	Author(s)	: M. Holdrege, I. Akramovich, C. Brown, B. Pitchandi
	Filename	: draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt
	Pages		: 33
	Date		: 2002-10-2
	
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.  In particular, it defines objects for use by the MEGACO/H.248 protocol operating on Media Gateways and Media Gateway Controllers. These objects can be used to manage the network containing Media Gateways and Media Gateway Controllers. 
This new version of the draft is an entire rework of the old version. Most of the missing MIB objects have been added to cover all the aspects of the entities being managed. The number of objects is kept at a minimum to ensure the easy implementation. For backward compatibility, some of the old objects are also retained.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-megaco-mib-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

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