ipcdn@conference.ietf.jabber.com - 2003/03/19
[14:20] %% GregWhite has arrived.
[14:28] %% rwoundy has arrived.
[14:28] <rwoundy> anyone there?
[14:28] <GregWhite> hi rich
[14:29] <rwoundy> hi greg - this is jean-francois taking live notes
[14:29] <GregWhite> hi, it looks like I'm the only one on
[14:29] <rwoundy> Rich posted the meeting slides on www.ipcdn.org
[14:29] <GregWhite> yep
[14:29] <rwoundy> ok
[14:29] <rwoundy> we're on slide 3
[14:30] <rwoundy> We will pull the igmp mib back to the wg
[14:30] <rwoundy> it needs to be rewritten with a compliance statement
[14:31] <rwoundy> moving to slide 4
[14:31] <rwoundy> Rich is reviewing the interim meeting we had in colorado in feb
[14:31] <rwoundy> we covered the bpi+ & qos mib in details there
[14:32] <rwoundy> (we have 11 people in the room here at the ietf)
[14:32] <rwoundy> slide 5
[14:32] <rwoundy> slide 5 shows the latest versions on the mibs submitted since Nov
[14:33] <rwoundy> Greg N asked the timeframe to have all the updates
[14:34] <rwoundy> it depends on the draft
[14:34] <rwoundy> for bpi+, work is in progress and draft09 should be available soon
[14:35] <rwoundy> moving to slide 6
[14:35] <rwoundy> Any comments from jabber participants?
[14:35] <GregWhite> not so far...
[14:35] <rwoundy> ok ;)
[14:37] <rwoundy> we're discussing the scary diffserv mib and applicability to the qos/sub mgmt mib re: TOS vs. DSCP
[14:38] <rwoundy> one idea would be to take the diffserv mib and profile it down with a compliance statement
[14:39] <rwoundy> however the diffserv mib does more and there could be some issues/overlap with other mibs - tbd
[14:39] <rwoundy> back to slide 6
[14:40] <rwoundy> in the RF mib, the module name should be reverted to DOCS-RFI-MIB since there is already an RFC and this is only an update
[14:40] <rwoundy> in fact the slide 6 is wrong: it should stay
[14:41] <rwoundy> DOCS-IF-MIB
[14:41] <rwoundy> bullet 2 subbullet 3
[14:42] <rwoundy> Azlina is raising one concern
[14:42] <rwoundy> re: the counters in RF mib on the CM and when you stop counting
[14:43] <rwoundy> and the differences between docsis qos mib 1.0 and 1.1
[14:43] <rwoundy> an email thread was started in ipcdn and will be reinitiated on this
[14:45] <rwoundy> moving to slide 6, bullet 3: qos mib
[14:45] <rwoundy> draft 08 is available
[14:45] <rwoundy> 1 issue is TOS vs. DSCP
[14:46] <rwoundy> Rich says that the mib should reflect what is in the DOCSIS specs
[14:46] <GregWhite> I agree
[14:46] <rwoundy> moving to slide 7
[14:47] <rwoundy> moving to slide 8
[14:49] <rwoundy> Rich is going through the bullet points here
[14:49] <rwoundy> moving to slide 9
[14:50] <rwoundy> Rich is going through the bullet points
[14:50] %% jasonschnitzer has arrived.
[14:50] <rwoundy> hey jason - we're on slide 9 of the ipcdn pres
[14:51] <rwoundy> Cablelabs is looking at how we could make the docsis spec diffserv-friendly
[14:51] <jasonschnitzer> thx
[14:51] <rwoundy> Greg has who
[14:52] <rwoundy> Greg asked who's using diffservb
[14:52] <rwoundy> Rich answers Cox
[14:55] <rwoundy> the question from the floor is what happens if the mask object is dropped
[14:55] <rwoundy> what impacts on the underlying docsis layer 2
[14:55] <rwoundy> For now, we're going back to operators to understand how they've been using it
[14:57] <rwoundy> I am passing the jabber note taker role to Rich (jean-francois to present the packetcable slides starting with slide #10)
[14:58] <rwoundy> one draft update on the Event Messaging MIB; need updates from other MIB authors
[14:58] <rwoundy> JF and Rich have been reviewing PacketCable MIBs; lots of comments
[14:59] <rwoundy> (we're on slide 10)
[15:00] <rwoundy> JF and Rich are seeing the same mistakes/issues in multiple IPCDN MIBs
[15:00] <rwoundy> the chairs may start asking for peer reviews on draft MIBs in our WG
[15:00] <rwoundy> so authors review other authors' MIBs
[15:02] <rwoundy> JF is going through the line items on slide 10, the detailed descriptions have been sent to the ipcdn mailing list
[15:07] <rwoundy> greg is suggesting that we don't expose the fact that we are using TFTP for config file download, to avoid the IETF controversy about using TFTP
[15:07] <rwoundy> we're going to slide 11 now
[15:10] <rwoundy> AVT profiles are in RFC 1889, and there is a new AVT draft
[15:10] <rwoundy> but this MIB doesn't even follow 1889
[15:10] <rwoundy> lots of residual references to DCS
[15:12] <rwoundy> we need to clarify when the DNS resolution takes place -- boot-time versus RSIP versus...
[15:15] <rwoundy> bunch of comments about DNS response contents.
[15:15] <rwoundy> some cms vendors may implement clustering by returning multiple IP addresses for an A resource record
[15:16] <rwoundy> the CMS may remove an IP address from the A RR if the server goes down; the IP addresses may be re-ordered by on server signaling load
[15:16] <rwoundy> on to slide 12
[15:19] <rwoundy> possible correction to slide 12: we think that InetAddress object descriptions need to point to InetAddressType objects -- not vice versa as per slide
[15:20] <rwoundy> I just confirmed this -- look at comment for docsBpi2CmIpMulticastAddress in <http://www.ipcdn.org/meetings/ipcdn-minutes-021303.html>
[15:21] <rwoundy> we should revise the PacketCable MIBs in the next month or so
[15:21] <rwoundy> Azlina will sign up to review the MEM MIB
[15:22] <rwoundy> we want to issue a WG last call as soon as the MIBs are updated
[15:22] <rwoundy> mid-April target date?
[15:23] <rwoundy> greg asked whether we are going to change the module names for the PacketCable MIBs, just like for DOCSIS
[15:23] <rwoundy> answer is yes
[15:24] <rwoundy> moving to slide 13 - cablehome
[15:24] <rwoundy> slide 13 shows the latest updates.
[15:24] <rwoundy> moving to slide 14
[15:25] <rwoundy> New co-authors have signed up and we, the wg chairs believe that we should accept the cablehome mibs as part of the wg charter
[15:27] <rwoundy> the dhcp server mib has been revised and as soon as it reaches WGLC in DHC, authors will have to resolve the overlap with cablehome mibs
[15:28] <rwoundy> are there any objections to accepting the CH mibs as part of ipcdn from jabber participants?
[15:28] <GregWhite> nope
[15:29] <rwoundy> no objections were received.
[15:31] <rwoundy> moving to slide 15
[15:32] <rwoundy> moving to slide 16
[15:33] <rwoundy> again, chairs are insisting on getting more frequent updates
[15:33] <GregWhite> can we get an overview of the timeline for WGLC and progression to RFC (for the uninitiated like myself)?
[15:33] <rwoundy> we'd like to request that participants review the MIBs
[15:34] <rwoundy> sure
[15:34] <rwoundy> for what mib in particular?
[15:34] <GregWhite> for the DOCSIS mibs
[15:34] <rwoundy> or is it a general question?
[15:34] <rwoundy> ok
[15:36] <rwoundy> hold on a couple of minutes (we concluded the meeting and will be right with you)
[15:48] <GregWhite> I've got to disconnect. I'll follow up via email. Thanks for providing the jabber session!
[15:48] %% GregWhite has left.
[15:52] %% rwoundy has left.
[16:29] %% edocardona has arrived.
[16:34] %% jasonschnitzer has left.
[17:35] %% edocardona has left.