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

Jean-Francois Mule wrote:
> 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.

OK -- that "complexity" argument was missing from the original proposal. 
I'm fine with that, then.


+Thomas

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