Subject: [ipcdn] FW: IPCDN Digest, Vol 16, Issue 2

From: Freyman Phillip-FPF300 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:17:22 -0500

Eugene,

Thank you for reviewing the ETSI requirement.

I agree on your revised proposal for the range to be 20 ms to 1550 ms so that the SigMIB can cover international requirements but with the default values set per Telcordia.

Regards,
Phillip Freyman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 11:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IPCDN Digest, Vol 16, Issue 2

Send IPCDN mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of IPCDN digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: cable dev mib draft09 - WG consensus requested on pro
      posed changes (Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179)
   2. RE: FW: IPCDN Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16 (Eugene Nechamkin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:44:14 -0700 
From: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179 <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] cable dev mib draft09 - WG consensus requested on
	pro	posed changes
To: Jean-Francois Mule <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-ID: <D5A7E45D575DD61180130002A5DB377C145AA158@ca25exm01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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 <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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ipcdn/attachments/20050901/711d24ed/attachment.htm

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 21:00:36 -0700
From: "Eugene Nechamkin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] FW: IPCDN Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16
To: [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Phil,

I agree with your approach to modify two objects - Min and Max with the following comment:

ETSI EN 300 001 V1.5.1 spec defines the break period (which is an equivalent for flash) as being as low as 50ms (Table 9.1.1). As a reality check - we have seen some European requests for having the flash range starting from 50-100ms. Hence, I would think that the lower range of 20 msec for both objects would have a better chance to meet the various requirements in the field. The following objects definitons seem to be satisfactory from our
prospective:

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (20..1550) 
    .....
    DEFVAL (300)

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (20..1550) 
    .....
    DEFVAL (1100)

Eugene.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Freyman Phillip-FPF300
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:14 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [ipcdn] FW: IPCDN Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16

Eugene,

Thank you for reviewing the GR 506 document however, I do not fully agree with your proposal.

Per your email, GR 506 states:

Table 12-2. Flash Response Enabled Timing On-Hook Duration (milliseconds) SPCS Interpretation

< 200 Hit
200 to 300 Hit or Flash
300 to 1100 Flash
1100 to 1550 Flash or Disconnect
>1550 Disconnect

This implies that the network MUST accept 300 to 1100 milliseconds as hook flash and must NOT accept less than 200 ms or more than 1550 ms.

The ranges of 200 to 300 and 1100 to 1550 are ranges where the network may accept or may reject the timing.

I do agree that some changes may be appropriate in the ranges of min/max values..

I do not agree with your proposed max default value and propose the following to bring the SigMIB into alignment with GR 506.

Current rev8 text:

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (20..1000) 
    UNITS        "Milliseconds" 
    MAX-ACCESS   read-only 
    STATUS       current 
    DESCRIPTION 
        " This is the minimum time a line needs to be on hook for a
          valid hook flash. The value of this object MUST be
          greater than the value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigPulseDialMaxBreakTime. The value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash MUST be less than
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash. This object MUST only be
          set via the configuration file during the provisioning
          process.
             Furthermore, given the possibility for the 'pulse dial' 
             and 'hook flash' to overlap, the value of this object MUST

             be greater than the value contained by the MIB Object 
             pktcNcsEndPntConfigPulseDialMaxMakeTime."
    DEFVAL { 300 } 
    ::= { pktcNcsEndPntConfigEntry 32 } 

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (20..1000) 
    UNITS        "Milliseconds" 
    MAX-ACCESS   read-only 
    STATUS       current 
    DESCRIPTION 
        " This is the maximum time a line needs to be on hook for a
          valid hook flash. The value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash MUST be greater than
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash. This object MUST only be
          set via the configuration file during the provisioning
          process."
    DEFVAL { 800 } 
    ::= { pktcNcsEndPntConfigEntry 33 } 

Proposed rev8 text change:

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (200..1550) 
    UNITS        "Milliseconds" 
    MAX-ACCESS   read-only 
    STATUS       current 
    DESCRIPTION 
        " This is the minimum time a line needs to be on hook for a
          valid hook flash. The value of this object MUST be
          greater than the value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigPulseDialMaxBreakTime. The value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash MUST be less than
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash. This object MUST only be
          set via the configuration file during the provisioning
          process.
             Furthermore, given the possibility for the 'pulse dial' 
             and 'hook flash' to overlap, the value of this object MUST

             be greater than the value contained by the MIB Object 
             pktcNcsEndPntConfigPulseDialMaxMakeTime."
    DEFVAL { 300 } 
    ::= { pktcNcsEndPntConfigEntry 32 } 

pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE 
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (200..1500) 
    UNITS        "Milliseconds" 
    MAX-ACCESS   read-only 
    STATUS       current 
    DESCRIPTION 
        " This is the maximum time a line needs to be on hook for a
          valid hook flash. The value of
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash MUST be greater than
          pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash. This object MUST only be
          set via the configuration file during the provisioning
          process."
    DEFVAL { 1100 } 
    ::= { pktcNcsEndPntConfigEntry 33 } 

Regards,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IPCDN Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16

Send IPCDN mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of IPCDN digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further	changes;result of
      conference call (Eugene Nechamkin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:44:56 -0700
From: "Eugene Nechamkin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further
	changes;result of conference call
To: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Sumanth,

Looking further at the Bellcore specs for pulse flash requirements (GR-506-CORE "LSSGR: Signaling for Analog Interfaces"), it turnes out that the requirements for the pulse range for flash are higher than it is currently allowed by the "pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash" MIB Object. Bellcore specs say that flash MUST be 300-1100, but may be up to 1550:

Table 12-2. Flash Response Enabled Timing On-Hook Duration (milliseconds) SPCS Interpretation

< 200 Hit
200 to 300 Hit or Flash
300 to 1100 Flash
1100 to 1550 Flash or Disconnect
>1550 Disconnect

To better meet the Bellcore specs requirements, the following modification of the MIB Object's range is proposed:

   pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash    OBJECT-TYPE  
       SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (20..1550)  
       UNITS        "Milliseconds"  
       MAX-ACCESS   read-only  
       STATUS       current  
       DESCRIPTION  
           " This is the maximum time a line needs to be on hook for a 
             valid hook flash. The value of 
             pktcNcsEndPntConfigMaxHookFlash MUST be greater than 
             pktcNcsEndPntConfigMinHookFlash. This object MUST only be 
             set via the configuration file during the provisioning 
             process." 
       DEFVAL { 800 }  
       ::= { pktcNcsEndPntConfigEntry 33 }   

.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sumanth Channabasappa [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:24 AM
To: Jean-Francois Mule
Cc: [email-masked]; Freyman Phillip-FPF300; Eugene Nechamkin; David De Reu; T, Shivakumar; [email-masked]; Satish Kumar at Texas Instruments; Beacham Gordon-CGB005
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further changes;result of conference call

Jean-Francois,

I concur. Unless there are objections, I will be presenting the final proposal to this group in the next week.

Regards
Sumanth 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Francois Mule
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 7:18 AM
To: Sumanth Channabasappa
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Freyman Phillip-FPF300'; 'Eugene Nechamkin'; 'David De Reu'; 'T, Shivakumar'; [email-masked]'; Satish Kumar at Texas Instruments; 'Beacham Gordon-CGB005'
Subject: RE: [ipcdn] draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further changes;result of conference call

Sumanth,

   Thanks for inviting anyone from IETF ipcdn to attend the discussion and for the notes.

   We have not seen one comment on your posting in 15 days so the proposal should be good enough. Per the IETF#63 meeting, the action item on the signaling MIB was: # AI: authors to close one open issue on tone table by August 20. # Ask Randy to review final proposal.

  Can you put out the proposed changes in the form of updated object definitions to the list so we can see all the aggregated changes?

  Based on our discussions, we are getting close to the end on this one and I would like to set the date of next Friday, September 2nd to have a consensus on the technical changes to allow a draft09 publication by mid-September at the latest.

Thanks,
Jean-François

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sumanth Channabasappa
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 10:09 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ipcdn] draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further changes;result
> of conference call
> 
> Folks,
> 
> As per the discussion on the conference call today (thanks to the
> attendees), the proposal from Phil seems to be reasonable.
> 
> Further, there was a suggestion to include the following examples in
> the draft for clarity and ease of implementation. Note: Example B was 
> also the cause for the latest suggestion.
> 
> 
> Example A:  Call waiting tone defined per ITU-T E.180:
> 1)	400 Hz AM modulated by 16 Hz, on for 500ms at -4 dBm
> 2)	400 Hz AM modulated by 16 Hz, off for 400ms
> 3)	400 Hz not AM modulated, on for 50 ms at -4 dBm
> 4)	400 Hz not AM modulated, off for 450 ms
> 5)	400 Hz not AM modulated, on for 50 ms at -4 dBm
> 6)	400 Hz not AM modulated, off for 3450 ms
> 7)	400 Hz not AM modulated, on for 50 ms at -4 dBm
> 8)	400 Hz not AM modulated, off for 450 ms
> 9)	400 Hz not AM modulated, on for 50 ms at -4 dBm
> 10)	400 Hz not AM modulated, off for 3450 ms
> 11)	not repeated, not continuous
> 
> Assume userDefined1(17) is assigned to this tone:
> 
> ToneType|Freq-1|Freq-2|Freq-3|Freq-
> 4|FreqMode|ModePrtg|DbLevel|OnDur|Off
> Dur|Rep-Count
> ======================================================================
> ==
> =============
> 17       400     16       0       0     1        90      -40    500
> 400    0
> 17       400      0       0       0     2         0      -40     50
> 450    0
> 17       400      0       0       0     2         0      -40     50
> 3450    0
> 17       400      0       0       0     2         0      -40     50
> 450    0
> 17       400      0       0       0     2         0      -40     50
> 3450    0
> 
> 
> pktcSigDevToneTable:
> ToneType|ToneRep-Count|Steady
> ================================
>   17         0         false(2)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> ---------------
> 
> Example B - Congestion Tone - congestion(17):
> 
> This example of an embedded cadence is based on an operator variation.
> 1) 400Hz on for 400ms -10 dBm
> 2) 400Hz off for 350ms
> 3) 400Hz on for 225ms -4 dBm
> 4) 400Hz off for 525ms
> 5) repeat (1) through (4) 5000 times or T0 timeout (which ever is
> shortest period)
> 
> ToneType|Freq-1|Freq-2|Freq-3|Freq-
> 4|FreqMode|ModePrtg|DbLevel|OnDur|Off
> Dur|Rep-Count
> ======================================================================
> ==
> =============
> 17        400     0       0     0       2         0     -100    400
> 350      0
> 17        400     0       0     0       2         0     -40     225
> 525      0
> 
> 
> pktcSigDevToneTable:
> ToneType|ToneRep-Count|Steady
> =================================
>   17       5000        false(0)
> 
> 
> Please feel free to provide any comments.
> 
> Regards
> Sumanth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sumanth Channabasappa
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:37 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: [ipcdn] draft-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08, further changes;
> conference call
> 
> Folks,
> 
> There has been a suggestion (from Phillip Freyman, Motorola) to move
> the 'dBm level', currently under 'PktcSigDevToneTable' to 
> 'pktcSigDevMultiFreqToneTable'. This is due to certain examples that 
> require this structure.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPCDN mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

------------------------------

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

End of IPCDN Digest, Vol 15, Issue 16
*************************************

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

------------------------------

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

End of IPCDN Digest, Vol 16, Issue 2
************************************

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