Subject: [ipcdn] RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08. txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

From: Murwin William-LWM008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:26:29 -0400

Eduardo,

(1) I am not sure if the QOS MIB is allowed to change [10] to be RFI v2 MIB. 
    [10] currently references RFC2670 RF-MIB, which is still applicable,   
    because RF-MIBv2 has to maintain backward compatiblity with RFC2670.
    The ietf draft guideline specifically say that: "	It is inappropriate 
    to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than
    as "work in progress."" http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

    Also according to RFC2026:

	********************************************************
      *                                                      *
      *   Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft    *
      *   be referenced by any paper, report, or Request-    *
      *   for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance *
      *   with an Internet-Draft.                            *
      *                                                      *
      ********************************************************	 

	   Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification
   that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the
   phrase "Work in Progress"  without referencing an Internet-Draft.
   This may also be done in a standards track document itself  as long
   as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a
   complete and understandable document with or without the reference to
   the "Work in Progress".

To me this means the RF-MIB v2 would have to be published as another document an we could cite that within the QOS-MIB.

Rich, do you know if it is acceptable to cite another "ietf-draft" and
if their are examples of this within other "ietf-drafts"?	

I will address your other questions in a email to come

Will Murwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:08 AM
To: Murwin William-LWM008
Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between
draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

Hi William, Minnie, Rich, 
Before complete issue#14 for discussion, 
Could you please review my assupmtions for the cross- RFI/QOS MIB
interoperability issue#14 attached document?

I have some concerns ( no comments still for item #13 Counters in/out
CmtsCmStatusTable as you proposed and I relauched with Q to solve by
Ipcdn participants thinking in the operational environment for 1-2 years
ahead.

Also how it is adjustable with already propietary methods supported
supported, ( they migth and will stay there...

Since we do not have resolution for #13 yet, and for keeping some sort
of legacy support ( Minnie Lu comments ), I do not know for sure if
those restrictions are useful right now due the divergency in current
implementations.

I like the cleanest as possible solution ( starting from William already
wrote Qos interoperability section, but I don't know its possible
impacts in the field applications or if handle the exceptions/violation
out of specification /Qualification for MSOs considerations 

Thanks

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Murwin William-LWM008 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Eduardo Cardona
Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between
draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

Yes 

item 5 from section 2.2.2.1 has been removed

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:02 PM
To: Murwin William-LWM008
Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between
draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

Hi William, 

Just to confirm that you are planning to delete only the item 5 in
2.2.2.1 for the coming draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-09.txt

I will propose a similar wording and section in the RFI v2 mib and any
extra information you have will be very valuable

Thanks

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Murwin William-LWM008 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:23 PM
To: 'Minnie Lu'; [email-masked]; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo
List; IPCDN (E-mail) (E-mail)
Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); David Raftus (E-mail)
Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between
draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

Minnie,

	After much consideration, DOCSIS QOS MIB version 9 will remove
the text from section Section 2.2.2.1 Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0:

5.  At the CMTS, the Docsis 1.0 MIB objects
    docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets for a
    SID assigned to a Docsis 1.1 or Docsis 2.0 modem count only the
    pre-registration packets/bytes of those modems."

This is not an issue for the QOS MIB. The QOS MIB tried to handle DOCSIS
1.1 changes to RFC2670. Now that rfc2670 is being obsoleted, the rf-mib
v2 and the DOCSIS OSS Specs is the place that should clearly state how
these counters and other tables interact in DOCSIS 1.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and
DOCSIS 2.0.

I would even hope to see a section in the rf-mib v2, "Interoperation
with the version of DOCSIS" like or to replace what the DOCSIS QOS MIB
has. This is the place to describe what table are populated under the
docsIfMib when the the modems are registering.

This way this issue can be re-discussed and whatever conculsion is
reached, can be document in the description of those objects.

Sincerely,
Will Murwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Minnie Lu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:16 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: sid counter inconsistent between
draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?

Hi,

   Since I have not yet got any reason for the sid counter 
inconsistence,  I would like to raise this issue again and hope this
time, 
people will reconsider it.

In draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt,

1. Section 2.2.2.1 Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0
        "5.  At the CMTS, the Docsis 1.0 MIB objects
          docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets for a
          SID assigned to a Docsis 1.1 or Docsis 2.0 modem count only
the
          pre-registration packets/bytes of those modems."

          Maybe I miss some discussion before.  If there was some 
discussion before, please excuse me to bring this up again because I
really 
don't understand why this is necessary to enforce this rule. SID concept
is 
still applicable to DOCSIS1.1 or 2.0.  The MIB objects 
docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets definitions
look 
good to me even for DOCSIS1.1 or 2.0.

    docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets OBJECT-TYPE
             "The cumulative number of Packet Data octets received
              on this Service ID. The count does not include the
              size of the Cable MAC header"

    docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets OBJECT-TYPE
             "The cumulative number of Packet Data packets received
              on this Service ID."

    From the description, it seems to me that they will count all the 
traffic including pre-registration and post-registration received on
this 
Service ID no matter that this Service ID associates with DOCSIS1.0 or 
DOCSIS1.1 or DOCSIS2.0 CMs.  So they are consistent for various version
of 
CMs mode.

    Also, in the same section, item 3 .
         "The docsIfCmServiceTable row for the DOCSIS 1.1 or DOCSIS 2.0
modem
          continues to exist, and the various statistic objects in that
          row are incremented."

    It sounds to me the item 4 is inconsistent with item 3 above.  For
the 
same MIB object, it counts differently in CM and CMTS for the SIDs 
associated with DOCSIS1.1 CMs.   I think it is good to keep CM and CMTS
the 
same as described in item 3.

    Also when customer queries the docsIfCmtsServiceTable, the customer 
might wonder why some entries have low count and not aware of they are
for 
the SID belongs to CM in DOCSIS1.1 mode.

I noticed this is not in version 4.  From v5, it starts having such
statements.

Thanks !
Minnie

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