FW: WAS :[ipcdn] Proposed Changes to Section 2.2.2.1 of the DOCS-IETF-QOS-MIB, from comments about temp and operational SIDs / Now RFI Section requirements

["Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>]

Forwarding to ipcdn list not included in below email

Eduardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Cardona 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:31 PM
To: 'Murwin William-LWM008'
Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule;
Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
Subject: WAS :[ipcdn] Proposed Changes to Section 2.2.2.1 of the
DOCS-IETF-QOS-MIB, from comments about temp and operational SIDs / Now
RFI Section requirements 


Hi IPCDN folks  

To be ready for RFI mib draft 08

Here is the proposed text for RFI mib to 1.0/1.1/2.0 relationships 

  Management Interoperability of DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0
 
   The MIB module contained in this document updates RFC 2670, 
   primarly to handle the requirements of DOCSIS 2.0 [4] as described in
the
   section 3 Overview. In the same way RFC 2670 contains the management 
   requirements for DOCSIS 1.0 and DOCSIS 1.1. 
   DOCSIS 1.1, [3] and adopted for DOCSIS 2.0 by [4], define a different

   service queuing mechanism known as QOS (ie see SNMP management module

   requirements for DOCSIS 2.0 in [5]).
   The management requirements of COS associated to RFC 2670 and 
   this document are the tables docsIfQosProfileTable, 
   docsIfCmServiceTable and docsIfCmtsServiceTable and the specifics 
   CM/CMTS support for DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are defined in their 
   Particular management specifications and MIB requirements associated 
   To [2], [3] and [4] respectively and out of scope of this document.


As William pointed in the email of the subject and hearing vendors
concers to restrict at this late implementation time something that
could be used havely for MSOs when the spec was silent about  (eg
docsIfCmtsServiceTable US counters for all type of registered CMs )

Below are some extra notes 
Let us know if it is adecuate or better not include anything in the MIB 

Item 5 in Qos MIB 2.2.2.1 is no longer applicable in William's edits and
with the notes below is may be undesirable to be added to RFI MIB 


Question, Is the proposed  "Management Interoperability of DOCSIS 1.0,
1.1 and 2.0"  section needed? QoS is above RFI mib and is already
defining (items 1..4 ) interoperability for 1.1 and 2.0 CMs, 1.0 only
capable devices won't handle QOS mib and the OSSI spec has "enough" mib
requirements.

See some extra previouly recollected notes:

# issue 14 
 
QOS-MIB current spec requirement D04 (DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0) does not have
item 5 in 
section 2.2.2.1  Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0
 
draft 08 has item 5 and draft 09 coming proposal will remove item 5
again
 
from DOCS-IETF-QOS-MIB
section 2.2.2.1  Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0, item 5
 
     5.  At the CMTS, the Docsis 1.0 MIB objects
         docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets for a
         SID assigned to a Docsis 1.1 or Docsis 2.0 modem count only the
         pre-registration packets/bytes of those modems.
 
 
 
The rationale for removing this note is : see (William Murwin) email
about its 
proposal for draft 09

DOCSIS 1.0 and early 1.1 MSOs followed different paths to support
specific needs, per 
MSOs request, related objects in docsIfCmtsServiceTable are critical for
user usage tracking. 

Placing requirements in QOS MIB and RFI MIB at this late stage is 
going to create confusion. Therefore, the initial though of placing 
item 5 in DOCS-IF-MIB is not a convenient path.
 
Instead a generic requirement of RFI MIB requirements which could be 
accomplished with a mapping e.g device sysDescr to a sort of 
AGENT-CAPABILITY vendor/MSO/CERTWave compliance module would be more 
appropiate. Such AGENT-CAPABILITY structures do not exist, OSSI specs 
might handle some of them like appendix A and other non-defined 
relationships that makes current implementation not broken by any new
proposal like item 5 mentioned above
 

For RFI mib v2 
A proposed general section describing DOCSIS 1.0 1.1 and 2.0
relationships (see text above) also a glosary set of terms to able to
handle easily for a lector the 
1.x very common word in objects text descriptions
 
Any intentional direct mention to SNMP management framework of QOS is
avoided 
in the section below and relay in RFI spec mandatory reference to OSSI
spec and then QOS mib.
 
Let us know it the text below is adecuate COB Thrusday Oct 23 2003, or
if we avoid the section.

Thanks

Eduardo
 

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
IPCDN@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn