Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue with Epackagerequirements

From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:22:20 -0600

Hi Randy,

How about we change the objects mentioned specifically as being required
for 'L Package only'? 

David?

regards
Sumanth

Dear all,

In the DESCRIPTION of a number of MIB objects, the term "international
systems" has been replaced by "E package" in draft 6. This introduces
the side-effect that a number of MIB objects that have nothing to do
with E package support, now only have to be supported when the E package
is supported. The following MIB objects are the ones I believe have
nothing to do with the E package, since the caller ID and VMWI
transmissions are triggered using the L package:

pktcSigDevCIDMode
pktcSigDevCIDFskAfterRing
pktcSigDevCIDFskAfterDTAS
pktcSigDevCIDFskAfterRPAS
pktcSigDevCIDRingAfterFSK
pktcSigDevCIDDTASAfterLR
pktcSigDevVmwiFskAfterDTAS
pktcSigDevVmwiFskAfterRPAS
pktcSigDevVmwiDTASAfterLR

An MTA for the international market that does however not support the E
package, will want to support the above MIB objects.

Maybe we can revert to the description of "international systems"?

Thanks,

Regards,

David

Hi -

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:23 AM
> Subject: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue with E 
> packagerequirements
...
> I agree with one of David's old comments to replace 'E Package' with 
> 'International Systems'.
...

I object to using the term "International Systems" without an adequate
definition.  (I raised this issue in an earlier MIB review.) I don't
particularly care what you call it, as long as the term and conformance
requirements are clearly defined.

Randy

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

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:12:35 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> Issue withEpackagerequirements
...
...

I see two parts to your proposal.

The first part, defining conformance in terms of "L Package,"
would be OK with me if the term "L Package" is defined and the
WG agrees that this is the right thing to do.  (As a MIB reviewer,
I don't much care what you call the packages, as long as they
are defined.)

The second part, which you might not intend, comes from the word
"only".  The phrase "only required for L package" doesn't bother
me, since it doesn't constrain those who do not implement the
L package.  The phrase "required for 'L package only'" bothers me
because it can be read as prohibiting systems which do not implement
L package from implementing these objects.

Randy

---

From: "David De Reu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:16:01 +0200

> How about we change the objects mentioned specifically as being required

I think this is different from the original intention.

Background
==========

The intention, to my belief, was to define these objects because they are
needed for MTA's for the "international market" only (i.e. Europe in
practice). These MTA's would have to be able to comply with the relevant
ETSI specs. The MIB objects define different timing values regarding CID
(Caller ID transmission) and VMWI (Visual Message Waiting Indicator) as
defined in the ETSI specs. The timing values can be different per country or
operator in Europe, but apparently don't apply to North America.

Of course both CID and VMWI exist in North America as well. CID and VMWI are
triggered by elements of the "L package" (which is always implemented by all
MTA's). The only difference is that MTA's for the "international market"
would have to take the MIB objects into account as well, whereas the "North
American" MTA's would not.

The "E package" is something that only applies to ETSI systems, but is in
practice not always implemented (as opposed to the L package). Therefore, in
practice the terms "ETSI systems" and "E package" are NOT equivalent. I am
aware that one or some of my e-mails in the thread "Signaling MIB - Draft
3 - Last Call - Clarification US/intl. requirements" may have suggested
otherwise, but these are the practical limitations we have to consider.
By the way, the E package has nothing to do with the MIB objects at hand.

Additional question
===================

Are there no timers at all with respect to CID and VMWI in North Amercia? Or
are the timers in North America standardized, and can they be expressed in
terms of the MIB objects under discussion?

Suggestion
==========

(1) assuming that the MIB objects indeed do not make sense in North America:

Referencing the L package as in "L package only" (with or without the "only"
part) would make the MIB objects mandatory to implement for North American
(i.e. pure PacketCable) MTA's as well, which apparently doesn't make sense
since they do not apply there (remember, they are translations to the MIB of
timers defined in the ETSI specs).

The discussion is a bit analoguous to the recent pktcSigPowerRingFrequency
issue raised (where you want a different default for North America vs.
Europe). In other words, you would have to find some wording that makes this
clear, without referencing either the L package or E package. If
"international" is not good enough, maybe we can revert to  the term "ETSI
systems" as was once used? Alternatively, we can distinguish between
PacketCable and Euro-PacketCable  instead of North American and
International, like e.g. in the IPCDN docsIfMib where there is a distinction
between DOCSIS and Euro-DOCSIS (spelled "EuroDOCSIS", in
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-11.txt).

An MTA would be an "ETSI system" or not, depending on its intended usage,
i.e. the market it is meant for.

(2) assuming that the North American timer values can be expressed in terms
of the ETSI MIB objects:

In this case it may make sense to make the MIB objects mandatory for all
MTA's, which solves the problem very easily: no extra reference to L
package, E package or ETSI systems would be necessary anymore.

Hope this helps a bit,

Regards,

David

_____________________________________________________
David De Reu
tComLabs
Stapelplein 70/004 - 9000 Ghent - Belgium
Tel: +32 9 269 22 91 - Fax: +32 9 329 31 74
www.tComLabs.com
_____________________________________________________

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:21:23 -0700

Hi -

> From: "David De Reu" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Kristof Sercu" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> IssuewithEpackagerequirements
...
(Extremely helpful background deleted)
...
...

As a MIB reviewer, I'm not particularly hung up on what term is chosen,
as long as (1) it is clearly defined so folks will know what the conformance
requirements are and (2) the WG is actually agreed that those are indeed
the conformance requirements.  This discussion gives me the feeling
that (2) is still a little fuzzy around the edges, but I'm very much an outsider
to this technology, and perhaps this is something totally obvious to those
who already understand it.  :-)

Randy