MTA MIB draft06 - AD comment #38 (RE: RE: AD Review: draft06 draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt)
"Jean-Francois Mule" <[email protected]> Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:02:17 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipcdn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thomas, Thank you for your input. I am splitting the threads to separate emails. This one is in response to comment #38. Jean-François > > # Comment 38 > > > >> - At various places in your MIB module you have FQDNs present. > >> I wonder if it would not be wise (for interoperability) to > >> specify WHEN such FQDNs are supposed to be resolved to IP > addresses. > > > > Agree. > > > > Proposed new text: > [...] > > pktcMtaDevSnmpEntity > > The MTA must resolve > > the FQDN value before its very first network interaction > > with the SNMP entity during the provisioning phase. > > Beware that pktcMtaDevSnmpEntity can in fact resolve to multiple IP > addresses and the expected behaviour is complex. Yes. That's a good point. > I'd prefer to > reference > the corresponding PacketCable Specifications instead. Can you propose a reference? Why instead? Why not in addition to (if your proposed reference if for multiple IPs as a result of DNS query)? The text Eugene and I proposed does not seem to overlap with a DNS query being resolved in multiple IPs, and your point seems to me a valuable extension for implementers to think about. Please clarify your point. Thanks, Jean-François