RE: Re: MTA MIB draft06 - AD comment #38

Thomas wrote:
>  Then, still, why is the first part needed to address
> comment #38 here (pktcMtaDevSnmpEntity), but not for pktcMtaDevCmsFqdn
> where you proposed:
> 
> > pktcMtaDevCmsFqdn
> >            The MTA must resolve the CMS FQDN as required
> >            by the corresponding PacketCable Specifications."
> 
> ?

Because the CMS FQDN touches a lot more "interfaces" and multiple specifications:
	- establishment of the IPsec security association between MTA and CMS,
	- establishment of NCS session at the signaling level
	- etc.

Jean-François