Subject: [ipcdn] draft submitted: subscriber management MIB -11

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:22:02 -0400

I have submitted a greatly-revised version of the subscriber management mib
(draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-11.txt), making use of the Diffserv MIB
(RFC3289) as outlined in my April 28 email. The good news is that the
document is now shorter, since much of filtering is now deferred to
existing facilities in RFC3289. This will be a significant implementation
change for CMTS vendors and operators.

The reason for the change is that the overlap with RFC3289 was so great
that I did not believe that the document would pass the broader review
needed for RFC approval. We gain by re-using the work that has already gone
into 3289. It also gives us the ability, although not mandated, to
integrate with other facilities within 3289.

I urge CMTS vendors and operators, in particular, to review this carefully
and make suggestions. As always, this document is the product of the
working group and only proceeds with working group consensus.

Respectfully submitted,
Wilson Sawyer
ARRIS

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:30:34 -0400

Where can I find a copy of this ?

Thanks,
David

Wilson Sawyer
05/29/2003 08:22 AM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked], (bcc: David White/Arris)
        Subject:        draft submitted: subscriber management MIB -11

I have submitted a greatly-revised version of the subscriber management 
mib (draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-11.txt), making use of the Diffserv 
MIB (RFC3289) as outlined in my April 28 email. The good news is that the 
document is now shorter, since much of filtering is now deferred to 
existing facilities in RFC3289. This will be a significant implementation 
change for CMTS vendors and operators.

The reason for the change is that the overlap with RFC3289 was so great 
that I did not believe that the document would pass the broader review 
needed for RFC approval. We gain by re-using the work that has already 
gone into 3289. It also gives us the ability, although not mandated, to 
integrate with other facilities within 3289.

Respectfully submitted,
Wilson Sawyer
ARRIS

---

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 14:26:24 -0600

David,
 
This is now posted on the IETF and IPCDN websites.
<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-11.txt>
 
-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [ipcdn] Re: draft submitted: subscriber management MIB -11

Thanks, 
David 

	Wilson Sawyer 

05/29/2003 08:22 AM 

        To:        [email-masked] 

I have submitted a greatly-revised version of the subscriber management mib
(draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-11.txt), making use of the Diffserv MIB
(RFC3289) as outlined in my April 28 email. The good news is that the
document is now shorter, since much of filtering is now deferred to existing
facilities in RFC3289. This will be a significant implementation change for
CMTS vendors and operators. 

The reason for the change is that the overlap with RFC3289 was so great that
I did not believe that the document would pass the broader review needed for
RFC approval. We gain by re-using the work that has already gone into 3289.
It also gives us the ability, although not mandated, to integrate with other
facilities within 3289. 

I urge CMTS vendors and operators, in particular, to review this carefully
and make suggestions. As always, this document is the product of the working
group and only proceeds with working group consensus. 

Respectfully submitted, 
Wilson Sawyer 
ARRIS