RE: RE: AD Review: draft06 draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt ( Comm ent 13)

To avoid confusion, I would recommend to have the red(new) text above
the sentence " If this object is set to 'false'..." 
 
Thx, Satish

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Eugene Nechamkin
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Jean-Francois Mule; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
Subject: [ipcdn] RE: AD Review: draft06
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt ( Comm ent 13)


 
> Maybe add some of that explanation to teh DESCRIPTION clause then.
 
PROPOSED: modify the description clause to the following (mods are in
red):
 
       DESCRIPTION  
            " This object contains the MTA Admin Status of this device. 
              If this object is set to 'true', the MTA is  
              administratively enabled and the MTA MUST be able to  
              interact with the PacketCable entities such as CMS,  
              Provisioning Server, KDC, and other MTAs and MGs on all  
              PacketCable interfaces. 
              If this object is set to 'false', the MTA is  
              administratively disabled and the MTA MUST perform the  
              following actions for all endpoints: 
                  - shutdown all media sessions if present, 
                  - shutdown NCS signaling by following the Restart in 
                  Progress procedures in the PacketCable NCS 
                  specification. 
 
              MTA must execute all actions required to enable/disable
the 
              telephony services for all endpoints immediately upon
receipt of 
              the SNMP SET operation. 
 
              Additionally, the MTA MUST maintain the SNMP Interface  
              For management and also SNMP Key management interface.  
              Also, the MTA MUST NOT continue Kerberized key management

              with CMSes until this object is set to 'true'. 
              Note: MTAs MUST renew the CMS Kerberos tickets according  
              to the PacketCable Security or IPCablecom Specification."

 
 
Would this modification address your concern ?
 
Eugene.
 


________________________________

From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:03 PM
To: Eugene Nechamkin; Jean-Francois Mule; Ipcdn (E-mail)
Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
Subject: RE: AD Review: draft06 draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt (
Comm ent 13)


Maybe add some of that explanation to teh DESCRIPTION clause then.
 
Bert

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Eugene Nechamkin [mailto:[email protected]]
	Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 22:19
	To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Jean-Francois Mule; Ipcdn (E-mail)
	Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
	Subject: RE: AD Review: draft06
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt ( Comm ent 13)
	
	
	> For example, if I set AdminStatus to "enable", and if the
device
	> seems unable to do so now, then I would still want the device
to
	> try and do it as soon as it can.
	 
	This example tells me where the disconnection might be. Let me
try once more: the PacketCable Provisioning Specification prohibits the
conditions when "the device seems unable to do so now". As soon as the
EMTA receives the SNMP SET with "pktcMtaDevEnabled" being set to
true/false, the device must and is always capable of enabling/disabling
the telephony services on the EMTA. So, there is no scenario which can
make "the device to try and do it as soon as it can" as the device would
have executed all actions required by the corresponding Admin state upon
SNMP SET operation. The conditions of your concern cannot happen in
PacketCable environment with PacketCable compliant EMTA device.
	 
	Please elaborate if this still does no cover your concerns on
this subject.
	 
	Eugene.
	 

________________________________

	From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 12:53 PM
	To: Eugene Nechamkin; Jean-Francois Mule; Ipcdn (E-mail)
	Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
	Subject: RE: AD Review: draft06
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt ( Comm ent 13)
	
	
	Inline

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Eugene Nechamkin [mailto:[email protected]]
		Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 21:24
		To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Jean-Francois Mule; Ipcdn
(E-mail)
		Cc: Richard Woundy @ Comcast
		Subject: RE: AD Review: draft06
draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-06.txt ( Comment 13)
		
		
		
		 
		Because the message is becoming too big I am separating
the responses for each comment for better trackability (also modifying
the title slightly).
		 
		# Comment 13
		 
		
		> - For pktcMtaDevEnabled a better name woul probably be
		>       pktcMtaDevAdministrativelyEnabled
		>   And how is the NMS going to see what the real
Operational status is?
		>   Is a AdminStatus and OperStatus (as in IF-MIB) not
more appropriate?
		Proposed resolution: no action
		In general, we agree with the comment and our first
reaction was, yes,
		let's rename it and add an operStatus one.
		But after looking at its definition in more details,
syntax
		(ThruthValue) and after c
		onsidering a new operStatus object, we think
		that:
		        - pktcMtaDevEnabled is both an admin and
operational status
		          object, hence the name is probably ok,
		        - it returns the operational status of the
enable/disable
		          switch when read.
		Our proposal, after reviewing your comment is still to
leave it as-is.
		Is this ok? if not, can you elaborate?
		 
		> bw: The issue is that if you use one single object for
both the admin's desire of the status and
		> at the same time for the actual operational status,
then it gets difficult. 
		> If you issue an SNMP SET to enable, then if you accept
it, then that means that the value
		> is to be changed to enabled. If however the value then
later changes, then I bet that the
		> management station is at least very surprised. It is
not for nothing that the IF-MIB (after a long
		> experience) has chosed to haev a Admin and Operational
status in two separate objects.
		 
		Let me put some more clarification on the issue which
may address your general concern with the Admin and Operational Status
separation. One of the reasons it would make sense to separate Admin and
Operational status is the potentail delay between the the SNMP SET
changing the Admin Status and actual Operational status of the device
including the case when the device might be not able to set the
corresponding Admin status for some reasons internal to the device. In
case of EMTA Enabling/Disabling, the PacketCable Provisioning spec does
not allow such delays and requires the EMTA to disable/enable the
Telephony Services on the EMTA with very minimal delay (if at all).
Hence, from the operational prosective, the separation of the Admin and
Operational Statuses in PacketCable environment does not seem to be
required.
		 
		Hope this clarifies. Please elaborate further otherwise.
		 
		Jean-Francois and Eugene.
		 
		
		bw: nope it does not clarify (at least not for me).
		I always see a difference between what an operator
wants/intends
		(i.e. AdminStatus) and what the device was actually able
to do
		or has done (i.e. OperStatus). The timing as to how fast
the 
		device/software has to do it has nothing to do with it
it in my view.
		For example, if I set AdminStatus to "enable", and if
the device
		seems unable to do so now, then I would still want the
device to
		try and do it as soon as it can.
		 
		Bert

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