Subject: RE: [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description change

From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:03:12 -0600

Hi Eugene,

How about:
 
"The default value for this object is dependent on the primary usage
area of the device. For devices compliant with PacketCable (North
America)  it MUST be set to f20Hz and for devices compliant with
IPCablecom (Europe)  it MUST be set to f25Hz."

Sumanth

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Eugene Nechamkin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:50 AM
	To: Beacham Gordon-CGB005; [email-masked]; Sumanth Channabasappa
	Subject: RE: [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description
change

	While not disagreeing with the proposal to delete the DEFVAL
clause from the MIB Object definition, I am not completely comfortable
with the fact that IETF MIB draft would make a reference to the document
([PKT-SP-MIB-SIG]) which will be obsolete when draft becomes an RFC (or
soon thereafter). Besides, I am not sure to which extent the mentioning
of compliency with the [PKT-SP-MIB-SIG] or with the [ITU-T-J169] is
unambigous. Not sure presisely what this "compliency" means. What's the
intention here - to say that for MTAs compliant with NorthAmerican-PC
the defval should be f20 but for MTAs compliant with Euro-PC the defval
should be f25Hz ? I think the reference to the compliency should be made
less ambiguous. 
	 
	Eugene.

  _____  

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Beacham Gordon-CGB005
	Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:48 AM
	To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'
	Subject: [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description change

	The following changes are recommended to the description of the
pktcSigPowerRingFrequency object.
	 
	delete: DEFVAL { f20Hz }
	add: This default value for this object MUST be f20Hz for MTAs
compliant to [PKT-SP-MIB-SIG]. The default value for this object MUST be
f25Hz for MTAs compliant to [ITU-T-J169].
	 
	Gordon

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

---

From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:03:46 +0200

Hi,

> IPCablecom (Europe)  it MUST be set to f25Hz."

I am not sure if it is a good idea to make a description like this.
How about an 'IPCableCom (planet mars)' if there would be such a thing?
I would suggest to add in the description of some common known usages,
but not defining it formal.

That is what is proposed above, but you already do make a 'REFERENCE'
for frequency ranges per country as defined in EN 300 001. I would
change the description saying that the default is defined on a per
country basis or something similar.

Harrie
(member of the MIB review team)
>     *From:* Eugene Nechamkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:50 AM
>     *To:* Beacham Gordon-CGB005; [email-masked]; Sumanth Channabasappa
>     *Subject:* RE: [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description change
> 
>      
>     While not disagreeing with the proposal to delete the DEFVAL clause
>     from the MIB Object definition, I am not completely comfortable with
>     the fact that IETF MIB draft would make a reference to the document
>     ([PKT-SP-MIB-SIG]) which will be obsolete when draft becomes an RFC
>     (or soon thereafter). Besides, I am not sure to which extent the
>     mentioning of compliency with the [PKT-SP-MIB-SIG] or with the
>     [ITU-T-J169] is unambigous. Not sure presisely what this
>     "compliency" means. What's the intention here - to say that for MTAs
>     compliant with NorthAmerican-PC the defval should be f20 but for
>     MTAs compliant with Euro-PC the defval should be f25Hz ? I think the
>     reference to the compliency should be made less ambiguous.
>      
>     Eugene.
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
>     Behalf Of *Beacham Gordon-CGB005
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:48 AM
>     *To:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]'
>     *Subject:* [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description change
> 
>     compliant to [PKT-SP-MIB-SIG]. The default value for this object
>     MUST be f25Hz for MTAs compliant to [ITU-T-J169].
>      
>     Gordon
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:35:55 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Eugene Nechamkin" <[email-masked]>; "Beacham Gordon-CGB005" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:03 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] pktcSigPowerRingFrequency description change
...
> IPCablecom (Europe)  it MUST be set to f25Hz."
...

In addition to Harrie's point about whether this is an exhaustive list
of possibilities, note that these MUSTs impose a *stronger*
conformance requirement than the original DEFVAL.  RFC 2578
clause 7.9 says:

   The DEFVAL clause, which need not be present, defines an acceptable
   default value which may be used at the discretion of an agent when an
   object instance is created.  That is, the value is a "hint" to
   implementors.

That's a *lot* weaker than a MUST in the DESCRIPTION clause.
Now if that's what the group wants to do, fine.  I just want to be sure
it's a conscious decision.

Randy