Subject: RE: [ipcdn] draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-01.txt

From: "Richard Woundy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:40:52 -0500

Ran,

Yours were not "dumb questions". I wanted to wait until I had joined AT&T
Broadband to answer some of the questions... which took far longer than I
expected. Sorry about that.

Now that I have imported my email as a Cisco employee into my new email
client (late last night) -- I now know that the last version of the Cable
Device MIB was submitted on March 2, 2002. I don't know where the IETF date
confusion comes from...

I want to put together an updated version of this internet-draft. Up to now,
the only motivation has been to make the MIB IPv-friendly, and to
synchronize with various CableLabs OSS specs. In my new role at AT&T
Broadband, I will be working more closely with CableLabs on a consistent
basis, and will ensure that this working group and CableLabs are working
more tightly on joint projects (and I agree with you -- CableLabs is a good
"design team" for the work of this working group).

The wording of the Security Considerations in the drafts in this working
group is constrained by the following guidance for MIB documents from the
IETF O&M folks: <http://www.ops.ietf.org/security.html>. If we want to use
text that specifically calls out the dangers/folly of using SNMPv2c, we
should get feedback from the folks on the <[email-masked]> mailing list.
Otherwise, I agree you make a valid point.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of RJ
Atkinson
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipcdn] draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-01.txt

<x-flowed>
Rich,

	I have some possibly dumb questions about your draft and a more general
question about the stuff here as it relates to stuff in the CableLabs'
DOCSIS process.  With luck, I'm just confused and you can clarify things
for me. :-)

1) Revision date
	The current online version has text indicated "Expires: August 2001"
but has a Fall date stamp at ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/.  So I think
maybe that draft really dates to Fall 2001.  Correct ?  Could you please
update/fix the dates the next time you revise the draft (presumably
before IETF/MSP) ??  Also, if the date inside the MODULE-IDENTITY clause
could get updated that would be very helpful.

2) Relationship to DOCSIS specs/draft specs
	I'm assuming that your draft is in reasonably close sync with work
coordinated at CableLabs on newer DOCSIS revisions than the REFERENCES
section of the draft seems to list.  True ?  Which DOCSIS revisions are
represented in your draft (e.g. 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, other) ??   Or maybe it
would be simpler to ask whether the draft and the corresponding DOCSIS
documents/drafts will be reasonably in sync as of IETF/MSP ?

	It would be helpful if your draft explicitly cited whichever newer
DOCSIS drafts/specs/documents relate to it in the REFERENCES section,
if there are any newer DOCSIS specs relating to the draft.

3) Security Considerations
	It would be helpful across the board (i.e. not just in your draft)
if folks would explicitly note that SNMPv2c is just as insecure as SNMPv1
is.  Folks generally do document this for SNMPv1.  SNMP wizards know it is
true for SNMPv2c, but there is a lot of confusion in the world about what
SNMPv2c does/doesn't provide.  Additional clarity would be very helpful
and ought not require very many more words.

More generally, not specific to this draft, some folks appear to think that
DOCSIS specs and IETF IPCDN drafts aren't fully in sync on OID definitions
and such like (for the OID branches that are within scope for IPCDN WG).
I hope that is either confusion on those folks part or just a temporary
lack of sync (e.g. because neither DOCSIS documents nor I-Ds/RFCs can be
instantly updated) and that the end result will be full synchronisation
of the DOCSIS documents' citation/definition of those OIDs and the set
of documents in this WG.  To me, it seems sensible to use the CableLabs
fora as a kind of Design Team for any IPCDN MIBs relating to DOCSIS.
If you could clarify reality in this respect, I'd be very greatly obliged.

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]

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

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:23:29 -0500

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 02:40 , Richard Woundy wrote:
> I want to put together an updated version of this internet-draft.

	Thanks very much.  My primary goal is to keep the I-Ds (and
RFCs) in sync with the current reality.

> The wording of the Security Considerations in the drafts in this
> working group is constrained by the following guidance for MIB
> documents from the IETF O&M folks: <http://www.ops.ietf.org/security.html>
> .

> If we want to use text that specifically calls out the dangers/folly
> of using SNMPv2c, we should get feedback from the folks on the
> <[email-masked]> mailing list.

	I believe, based on recent experience with the BGP MIB where
I had essentially the same inputs and my proposal was recently
implemented, that my suggestion regarding "Security Considerations"
for IPCDN MIBs is not conflicting with the URL/guidance from the
MIB wizards.  One could send a quick note to the O&M ADs to obtain
precise confirmation that I am not confused about this point.

	A glance at the very very latest BGP MIB's "Security
Considerations" gives a good example of the kind of things
that I think ought to be there.  I believe this latest I-D's
version is online already, but am not 100% certain this second
as I write this note.

Cheers,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:23:29 -0500

Cheers,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: "Richard Woundy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:40:52 -0500

Ran,

-- Rich

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

<x-flowed>
Rich,

1) Revision date

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]