Subject: [ipcdn] RE: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)

From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:04:40 -0600

Hi Minnie, 

Could be the case that for the same reason you have vendor default
entries, a user may create their own set of entries and turn them
disable to avoid being used to configure interfaces.

Specially I am not comfortable with the case of : active -> notInService
-> reboot -> "where is my old entry"? 

For the case of notReady, I may think that you are trying to align the
CLI approach ( a command does not success if is not well formed then you
execute the write to memory command to save the changes and only correct
table entries are saved, (the bad ones do not exist). I have no strong
opinion against that and I would like to hear from IPCDN participants
about conventional practices or similar situations in other MIB modules.

Will that help? sorry not having a more definitive answer.
It does not preclude to come up with the approapiate wording as a
proposal which may help to discover other type of reactions :)

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Minnie Lu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:37 PM
To: Eduardo Cardona
Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Donati Andrew-MGIA0477; [email-masked]; Randy
Presuhn; Keske Tom-LTK002; Azlina Ahmad; Minnie Lu; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo
List
Subject: Re: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)

Hi, Eduardo,

   Thanks a lot for listening to me. I am happy with the new text.

    But I still have concern about saving notInService or notReady rows
for 
modulation profiles into NVRAM and have them persistent across CMTS 
reboot,  especially for the rows with inconsistent attributes which is 
allowed for rowStatus in 'notInService' and 'notReady'.

   Though this is extreme case, but since the MIB or spec does not
prevent 
to do so or does not make it optional, that means CMTS MUST implement
such 
capability to save rows with inconsistent attributes into NVRAM which is
a 
waste of CMTS resource and complicated the implementation for no or
little 
gain.

   Possible to make it an optional that saving rows with inconsistent 
attributes into NVRAM and persistent across reboot ?

    Thanks a lot for your advice !
    Minnie

At 10:27 AM 4/15/2004 -0600, Eduardo Cardona wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Please find attached the summary of changes after all your feedback, 
>special thanks to Randy Presuhn for all the detailed comments.
>
>Please note that the storageType objects are being set as CMTS only 
>requirement docsIfCmtsGroupV2  since the CM compliances are read-only 
>or any other tables do not apply to CMs.
>
>Change #9 for the docsIfCmRangingTimeout please review the other 
>question sent to the list and OSSI reflector
>
>Please see if the coments are being captured properly.
>
>
>PDF has the color change, also attached text file for convenience.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Eduardo
>

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:53:38 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Minnie Lu" <[email-masked]>
...
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:04 PM
> Subject: RE: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)
...
> -> reboot -> "where is my old entry"?
...

If you do NOT want it to work this way, then you'll need to put language
to that effect into the DESCRIPTIONs for the RowStatus object.
RFC 2579 page 16 makes it clear why:

            If the management station is prevented from setting the
            status column to `active' (e.g., due to management station
            or network failure) the conceptual row will be left in the
            `notInService' or `notReady' state, consuming resources
            indefinitely.  The agent must detect conceptual rows that
            have been in either state for an abnormally long period of
            time and remove them.  It is the responsibility of the
            DESCRIPTION clause of the status column to indicate what an
            abnormally long period of time would be.  This period of
            time should be long enough to allow for human response time
            (including `think time') between the creation of the
            conceptual row and the setting of the status to `active'.
            In the absence of such information in the DESCRIPTION
            clause, it is suggested that this period be approximately 5
            minutes in length.  This removal action applies not only to
            newly-created rows, but also to previously active rows which
            are set to, and left in, the notInService state for a
            prolonged period exceeding that which is considered normal
            for such a conceptual row.

Consequently, if the WG wants the peculiar behaviour of having non-active
rows survive re-boots, you'll need to spell it out in the DESCRIPTIONs.

Randy