Dan
Thanks
for the helpful comments, and I look forward to more:-) I'll be at the
IETF meeting next week, plan to try and progress the draft and would
welcome some direct input from you. I'll look through your initial
feedback and try and incorporate as much as possible prior to next
week.
[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)] Sure, we can set some time to work this
together.
With
regard to the scope - this reflects the guidance given at the AVT mtg when the
last draft was presented - which was that it would be more expedient to
refocus from the original RTPMIBV2 to an RTCP XR MIB. The name of the
current draft was kept as RTPMIBV2-01 based on advice from the AVT chairs -
I'm sure that when the draft is discussed next week then we will agree to
rename it.
[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)] I am not sure that I understand
the chairs guidance here. My suggestion in a previous AVT meeting, which
I understood was agreed by the chairs and by the Area Directors (Alison, Bert)
- but maybe I mis-read their heads nodding - was that to have two
documents:
- RTPv2 MIB - which will be
a revision of RFC 2959, bringing it up-to-date with RFC 3550, and
incorporating eventual field
experience
- RTCP-XR MIB - your
document
What seems to have happened
is that we do not have an RTPv2 MIB, while the RTCP-XR MIB is titled as 'RTPv2
MIB' which is confusing
The
intended applications include use in a Media Gateway, where it may be
desirable to access multiple sets of call quality data through SNMP.
Personally I don't think SNMP is an ideal way to access data from
individual IP phones and similar clients, other than on an occasional
basis.
[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)] That's where some
deployment scenarios would be of great help for the
implementers.
Regards
Alan