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 IPCDN at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn