IETF63 - IPCDN wg meeting minutes

Folks,

 

     Here are the minutes from our ipcdn wg meeting last week. 

     Will wait until Monday to send those as part of the

     proceedings of IETF #63.

 

Jean-François

 

------------------------------------------

IETF IPCDN Meeting Notes
IETF#63, IP over Cable Data Networks WG
Paris, France
Monday, August 1, 2005
 
Reported and edited by Jean-Francois Mule' ([email protected])
 
 
--- WG Meeting Summary
--- ------------------
About ten IETF participants attended the IPCDN WG meeting at IETF #63
in Paris on August 1st 2005. Total meeting time was one hour.
 
There were no meeting materials prepared for this meeting as the goal
was to use the time as a working session to resolve known issues on
the main active drafts. The meeting essentially focused on the cable
device MIB v2 and the top 4 remaining issues.
 
The action items (AI) are outlined and called out in the text below.
 
 
1/ Agenda Bashing
A jabber session was also initiated and Rich Woundy, ipcdn co-chair
participated remotely. The jabber chat room is:
[email protected].
The proposed agenda was accepted by the wg without modifications, it
is also available at: http://www.ipcdn.org/meetings.html and as part
of the IETF proceedings.
 
 
2/ Administration
We briefly discussed the re-chartering & milestone updates. Below is
the newly proposed date corresponding to the "wg done" milestone.
 o DOCSIS Cable Device MIB version 2: Oct 2005
 o RF MIB v2:                         Oct 2005
 o MTA MIB:                           Oct 2005
 o Signaling MIB:                     Oct 2005
 o Management Event MIB:              Dec 2005
It was commented that those dates look aggressive for some of the work
items so co-authors should review the above.
# Action Item (AI):
# Upon review of notes by wg, if there is no comments on the above
# milestones, Jean-Francois to send updated charter proposal to Bert
# for approval.
# Due by end of August 2005
 
 
3/ IPCDN DOCSIS mibs
 
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
 
 
3.2/ RF MIB v2
     draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt
     Editor: Eduardo Cardona
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txt> 
 
Not discussed due to time limit.
# AD review by Bert due by August 15
 
3.3/ IPCablecom/PacketCable MTA MIB
     draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt
Not discussed due to time limit.
# AD review by Bert due by August 15
 
3.4/ Signaling MIB
     draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08.txt
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-08.txt
Not discussed due to time limit.
# AI: authors to close one open issue on tone table by August 20.
# Ask Randy to review final proposal.
 
3.5/ Management Event MIB
     draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
Not discussed due to time limit.
# AI: chair (Jean-Francois) to ping authors to understand the status
# of the document and define next steps accordingly.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
 
 
 
4/ IPCDN WG next steps
Beyond the action items noted above and implementation of the various
decisions the wg agreed to, the following is our work plan:
 - Finish all DOCSIS MIBs by September 2005
 - Update
   PacketCable/IPCablecom MTA MIB
   PacketCable/IPCablecom Signaling MIB
   and request publication by October 2005
 - Advance expert + mib doctor reviews for Management Event MIB for
   MTAs
 
 
>.end of the IETF#63 ipcdn meeting notes

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn