Re: IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> IssuewithEpackagerequirements

Hi -

> From: "David De Reu" <[email protected]>
> To: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Kristof Sercu" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] IETF NCS Sig MIB draft 6 -> IssuewithEpackagerequirements
...
(Extremely helpful background deleted)
...
> The discussion is a bit analoguous to the recent pktcSigPowerRingFrequency
> issue raised (where you want a different default for North America vs.
> Europe). In other words, you would have to find some wording that makes this
> clear, without referencing either the L package or E package. If
> "international" is not good enough, maybe we can revert to  the term "ETSI
> systems" as was once used? Alternatively, we can distinguish between
> PacketCable and Euro-PacketCable  instead of North American and
> International, like e.g. in the IPCDN docsIfMib where there is a distinction
> between DOCSIS and Euro-DOCSIS (spelled "EuroDOCSIS", in
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-11.txt).
...

As a MIB reviewer, I'm not particularly hung up on what term is chosen,
as long as (1) it is clearly defined so folks will know what the conformance
requirements are and (2) the WG is actually agreed that those are indeed
the conformance requirements.  This discussion gives me the feeling
that (2) is still a little fuzzy around the edges, but I'm very much an outsider
to this technology, and perhaps this is something totally obvious to those
who already understand it.  :-)

Randy