Subject: RE: [ipcdn] cable dev mib draft09 - WG consensus requested on proposed changes

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:34:53 -0600

Thanks Greg for reviewing the proposed changes. 

3 weeks have passed since August 15: we have reached WG consensus on the proposed changes.

One comment was received from Greg on issue #4, to consider the stronger 'MUST NOT' rather than 'SHOULD NOT'. I personally prefer SHOULD NOT as it is already quite strong of a requirement and it allows a device to remain complaint if the implementer has a good reason not to implement the MUST NOT.

Rich, Kevin, others - any preference? 

if noone else responds by September 9, 9am ET, I propose we go with Greg's preference: MUST NOT.

Jean-François

IPCDN co-chair

  _____  

From: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:44 AM
To: Jean-Francois Mule; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] cable dev mib draft09 - WG consensus requested on proposed changes

I concur with the proposed resolution.

For Issue 4, my preference is that 'MUST NOT' be used, rather than 'SHOULD NOT'.  I think a device will run into operational problems if it maintains these table entries across reboots.  When the device reboots, the config log will attempt to create rows in these tables and will fail if the rows already exists.

greg

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mule
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 3:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipcdn] cable dev mib draft09 - WG consensus requested on proposed changes

Folks,

   As you may have read in meeting notes from last week, we spent the IETF 63 meeting discussing the closure of open issues on the CD mib v2.

   The meeting notes proposed some changes to get final (yes, final) closure on this mib.

Please review the text below and please speak up if you have some concerns (it's also welcome that you express your agreement).

Thanks,

Jean-François

[extract from ipcdn minutes]

3.1/ DOCSIS Cable Device MIB version 2

     draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-09.txt

     Editors: Kevin Marez & Rich Woundy

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-09.txt

We spent most of the meeting reviewing the 4 top remaining issues, see

summary sent by Rich and Kevin in:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01664.html

+ ISSUE #1: DEFVAL for docsDevNmAccessInterfaces 

Raised by Randy, the issue is, in the defval we have a 4 octet value

=> How can systems with interfaces in a number not multiple

of 8 interpret the DEFVAL value. Are bits ignored?

Randy commented that he would be ok if there was some mention like

'octets containing bits corresponding to non-existent interfaces are

ignored.' That said, if there are implementations that would reject a

SET, then we need to say something about that.

Rich commented that the DEFVAL was added due to prior MIB doctor

comment and that the object is now deprecated. Bert asked whether

there was any concern deleting the DEFVAL.

Proposal for wg review:

 a) in docsDevNmAccessInterfaces, delete DEFVAL { '00000001'h }

 b) consider the following (NICE TO HAVE kind of fix)

    adding a sentence to say something like:

    bits set corresponding to non-existing interfaces is

    implementation specific (to warn the mgmt admin/apps that no

    assumptions should be made on existing implementations of this

    object. (Randy's suggestion)

+ ISSUE #2: docsDevNmAccessStatus

-- Also, we should change the DESCRIPTION of docsDevCpeStatus

-- and docsDevCpeInetRowStatus to document how the agent adds rows.

See issue raised by Randy and the email summary provided by Rich for

the context around this issue #2.

We had some discussions around the persistency of those tables, the

fact that the CM config file drives the row creation at boot-up and

the fact that they are read-create tables so admins can also create

entries as Bert pointed out.

In most cases (except for docsDevEvControlTable), entries do not

persist across CM reboots. Even in the case of docsDevEvControlTable,

after some discussion, we believe that the entries are cleared and

"recreated" after the CM reads the config file. That is the common

understanding.

Bert said: add a statement ("this is a deprecated table, this is

vendor specific as to what vendors do with this table, mgmt app cannot

expect a certain behavior").

+ ISSUE #3: docsDevEvReporting and local(0) rows

Comment close: ID authors agree with Randy's comment re: local(0) rows

MUST persist. Text will be revised.

in docsDevFilterLLCTable:

             Any attempt to SET the traps(1) or syslog(2) bits

             without setting the local(0) or localVolatile(8)

             bits MUST result in an error being generated.

Proposal:

   DELETE above text if nobody complains after reading the meeting

   notes

+ ISSUE #4: docsDevFilterLLCTable 

Issue is around text for the level of requirements on table

persistence. Agree with Rich's text proposal:

  |"Table entries MUST NOT persist across reboots for cable modems."

Rich also proposed to apply this requirement to:

  NmAccess, FilterLLC, FilterIp, Policy, Tos,

  Cpe and InetCpe tables.

It was suggested to use SHOULD NOT rather than MUST NOT but other than

that, proposal is ok.

+ Other items on CD Device MIB:

Randy added for consideration:

wherever we have this "must not persist" langage in table definitions,

it would be a plus to indicate that they may come back as entries may

reappear when CM reboots and comes up with config file. Or consider

adding this in the front paper as a consideration for users of the

MIBs if that is too many little edits in the MIB objects.

Proposal:

  add a note on persistence model explaining the persistance of some

mib objects and the CM re-creating them upon config file reloading.

A comment was made that in general, we should indicate the persistency

model in each object rather than in the compliance section.

Bert also commented on the compliance sections: if different

requirements apply to CM and CMTS, suggestion is to make 2 different

compliances. Rich added that the new compliance statement is designed

like that.

# AI: [authors: Kevin Marez & Rich Woundy]

# Authors to summarize list of agreed changed and the technical

# changes in the text per wg consensus and issue new draft after AD

# review comments are in. 

# Due by early September?

# AD review by Bert due by August 15

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