RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-0 5.txt

OK, will update.

Thanks, greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:11 AM
To: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179; Jean-Francois Mule
Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Subject: RE: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-0 5.txt


I still seee
   docsDevCmNotifControlGroup OBJECT-GROUP
       OBJECTS {
           docsDevCmNotifControl
       }
       STATUS current
       DESCRIPTION
           "CM must support docsDevCmNotifControl."
       ::= { docsDevNotifGroups 1 }

The "CM must support" is something that is normally not put in a OBJECT-GROUP 
statement. This statement is used to just "group" objects together that logically 
belong together. The "CM must..." is part of the "MANDATORY GROUPS" clause of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement. So a better text for above would be:

   docsDevCmNotifControlGroup OBJECT-GROUP
       OBJECTS {
           docsDevCmNotifControl
       }
       STATUS current
       DESCRIPTION
           "This group represents objects to allow control over CM Notifications."
       ::= { docsDevNotifGroups 1 }

Same for: docsDevCmtsNotifControlGroup

Other then that it looks fine to me. 

Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179 [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 01:00
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification - 
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-0 5.txt
> 
> 
> Burt,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> 1) I cross-checked all the citations with the references and
> they are in synch now.
> 2) Compliance statement - My apologies.  You provided me with 
> this comment before the holidays and I neglected to 
> incorporate it.  It is in now.
> 3) I moved the text regarding RFC3413 from the Security 
> Considerations section to the appropriate MIB description clauses.
> 4) Regarding the persistency comment...  OK, I will post a 
> message to the WG and solicit feedback.
> 
> I've attached an update.
> 
> Thanks, greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:23 AM
> To: Jean-Francois Mule
> Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; Nakanishi Greg-MGI8179; Ipcdn (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification - 
> draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-0 5.txt
> 
> 
> I get:
>   !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
>   P039 L042:    [10]  SCTE Data Standards Subcommittee, 
> "Data-Over-Cable Service
> 
> I could fix theat with an RFC-Editor note if you tell me
> where to insert the citation.
> 
> On page 37:
>    It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security
> features as
>    provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8),
>    including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for
>    authentication and privacy).
> Causes:
>   !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC3410]
>   P038 L017:    provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see 
> [RFC3410], section 8),
> 
> I could fix that with an RFC-Editor note.
> 
> It makes me wonder if all references are in sync with the
> citations. Someone, please check and send a positive 
> acknowledgement that you HAVE checked them all and that they are OK.
> 
> But I still see:
>    docsDevCmNotifCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
>        STATUS current
> 
>        DESCRIPTION
>        "The compliance statement for CM Notifications and Control"
> 
>        MODULE --docsDevNotif
>        --mandatory groups
> 
>            GROUP docsDevCmNotifControlGroup
>            DESCRIPTION
>                "Mandatory in CM."
> 
>            GROUP docsDevCmNotificationGroup
>            DESCRIPTION
>                "Mandatory in CM."
> 
>        ::= { docsDevNotifCompliances 1 }
> 
> And I thought we had agreed that you would change it to:
> 
>    docsDevCmNotifCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
>        STATUS current
> 
>        DESCRIPTION
>        "The compliance statement for CM Notifications and Control"
> 
>        MODULE --docsDevNotif
>            MANDATORY-GROUPS {
>                docsDevCmNotifControlGroup,
>                docsDevCmNotificationGroup
>            }
>        ::= { docsDevNotifCompliances 1 }
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> And also:
>    docsDevCmtsNotifCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
>        STATUS current
>        DESCRIPTION
>            "The compliance statement for DOCSIS CM and CMTS."
>        MODULE --docsDevNotif
>        --mandatory groups
> 
>            GROUP docsDevCmtsNotifControlGroup
>            DESCRIPTION
>                "Mandatory in CMTS."
> 
>            GROUP docsDevCmtsNotificationGroup
>            DESCRIPTION
>                "Mandatory in CMTS."
> 
>        ::= { docsDevNotifCompliances 2 }
> 
> should be (possibly) be (but see my questions):
> 
>    docsDevCmtsNotifCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
>        STATUS current
>        DESCRIPTION
>            "The compliance statement for DOCSIS CM and CMTS."
> 
> bw asks: is it really for CM and CMTS or only for CMTS?
> 
>        MODULE --docsDevNotif
>            MANDATORY-GROUPS {
>                docsDevCmtsNotifControlGroup,
>                docsDevCmtsNotificationGroup
>            }
>        ::= { docsDevNotifCompliances 2 }
> 
> if it is both for CM and CMTS, then you seem to be telling me
> that it is optional for CM. So maybe this one should be just 
> for CMTS (with just 
> mandatory groups) and then the first MODULE-COMPLIANCE should 
> have these 2 groups added as optional groups!?
> 
> If this is just for CMTS, then the DESCRIPTION clause should
> say so and then my 
> suggested change is the proper way to specify it.
> 
> You have put this 
>    Note that notifications are also under the control of the
> MIB modules
>    defined in RFC 3413 [17].
> In the security COnsiderations section. That is not a 
> secuurity concern (I think). Rather it is something to 
> describe (I think) in the DESCRIPTION clauses of 
> docsDevCmNotifControl and docsDevCmtsNotifControl.
> 
> W.r.t. Persistency of the writable objects you have added:
>         If the device is rebooted, the value of this object
> should revert
>         to the default value.
> which meets my concern. 
> It is something however that you and the WG chairs may want 
> to make sure that the WG agrees with.
> 
> Bert
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Francois Mule [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 19:19
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: New Version Notification - 
> > draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-05.txt
> > 
> > 
> > Bert,
> > 
> >    Let us know what the next step is on this ID.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jean-François
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ID Tracker [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 11:46 AM
> > > To: Richard Woundy @ Comcast; [email protected];
> > > Jean-Francois Mule; [email protected]; 
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: New Version Notification - 
> > > draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-05.txt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > New version (-05) has been submitted for 
> > > draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsisevent-mib-05.txt.
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docsiseve
> > nt-mib-05.txt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>