Re: MTA MIB draft06 - AD comment #38 (RE: RE: AD Review: draft06 draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt)

Jean-Francois Mule wrote:
>>># 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.

Why be more specific here then in the proposal for pktcMtaDevCmsFqdn? 
The equivalent proposal would be:

pktcMtaDevSnmpEntity
            [...]
            The MTA must resolve the FQDN of the SNMP entity as required
            by the PacketCable MTA Device Provisioning Specification.

Implementators are expected to seek ultimate guidance wrt. FQDN 
resolving in [PKT-SP-PROV] and this way we'll make sure we don't create 
conflicting requirements.


+Thomas

-- 
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)