Re: RE: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10) - Clarification

Hi,  Randy and Eduardo,

Thanks a lot for the advice !

I wonder whether it is really needed to add the new object StorageType in 
this modulation profiles.  Sorry to go back to the step 1.

1. active row most likely are persistent across reboot already in current 
CMTS implementation.  I don't think it will be any extra work for CMTS to 
have active MUST be persistent across reboot. Also, it will be clear to 
user that all active rows will be persistent cross reboot.
2. non-active looks like no use to be persistent across reboot. Also 
non-active rows can be aged out even in the run time.

Since the rule is (please allow me to quoted from Randy's previous email) 
"explicit about persistence, either mandating it in DESCRIPTIONs or using 
StorageType to report / control it as needed."

Here is my suggestions.

  Suggestion 1:  Explicit about persistence mandating it in DESCRIPTION.
    "rowStatus is in 'Active' MUST be persistent across managed system reload"

     For non-active rows, just follow the RFC, so no need to mention in the 
MIB.

  Suggestion 2:  New object StorageType RO  (read-only)
     For user created active row, the value is always 'nonVolatile(3)'
     For non-active row, the value is always 'volatile(2)'
     For system created default rows, the value can be ether
         a. for vendors choose to have read-create access for the system 
default rows
          'volatile(2)' when row is changed to notInService or
          'nonVolatile(3)'
         b. for vendors choose to have read-only access for the system 
default rows
          'permanent(4)' or 'readOnly(5)'

   Will it work ?

   Thanks a lot for your advice again !
   Minnie

At 10:34 AM 4/16/2004 -0600, Eduardo Cardona wrote:
>Hi Andrew,
>very welcome the clarification, even though, I think It was well
>understood since docsIfCmtsModControl SYNTAX is RowStatus,
>
>Thanks
>
>Eduardo
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Donati Andrew-MGIA0477 [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 10:24 AM
>To: Donati Andrew-MGIA0477; 'Minnie Lu'; Eduardo Cardona
>Cc: Eduardo Cardona; '[email protected]'; 'Randy Presuhn'; Keske
>Tom-LTK002; 'Azlina Ahmad'; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo List
>Subject: RE: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10) - Clarification
>
>
>I would like to correct/clarify the earlier sentence.  The suggestion
>should have stated to add to the "docsIfCmtsModControl" DESCRIPTION,
>not to the "Row Status" DESCRIPTION already defined in RFC2579.
>
>Instead of:
>
>To address the concern raised by Minnie, may I suggest that we add to
>the DESCRIPTION clause of the row status column to define a time
>interval that the agent must remove rows that remain in the
>'notInService' or 'notReady' state.
>
>This is what was intended:
>
>To address the concern raised by Minnie, may I suggest that we add to
>the DESCRIPTION clause of  docsIfCmtsModControl to define a time
>interval that the agent must remove rows that remain in the
>'notInService' or 'notReady' state.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Donati Andrew-MGIA0477
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:01 AM
>To: 'Minnie Lu'; Eduardo Cardona
>Cc: Eduardo Cardona; [email protected]; Randy Presuhn; Keske Tom-LTK002;
>Azlina Ahmad; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo List
>Subject: RE: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)
>
>
>All,
>
>To address the concern raised by Minnie, may I suggest that we add to
>the DESCRIPTION clause of the row status column to define a time
>interval that the agent must remove rows that remain in the
>'notInService' or 'notReady' state.
>
>This is defined under "Interaction 4: Making the Conceptual Row
>Available" in RFC 2579.
>
>Taken from RFC2579 Section 2, Row Status, Interaction 4:
>
>             "If the management station is prevented from setting the
>             status column to `active' (e.g., due to management station
>             or network failure) the conceptual row will be left in the
>             `notInService' or `notReady' state, consuming resources
>             indefinitely.  The agent must detect conceptual rows that
>             have been in either state for an abnormally long period of
>             time and remove them.  It is the responsibility of the
>             DESCRIPTION clause of the status column to indicate what an
>             abnormally long period of time would be.  This period of
>             time should be long enough to allow for human response time
>             (including `think time') between the creation of the
>             conceptual row and the setting of the status to `active'.
>             In the absence of such information in the DESCRIPTION
>             clause, it is suggested that this period be approximately 5
>             minutes in length.  This removal action applies not only to
>             newly-created rows, but also to previously active rows which
>             are set to, and left in, the notInService state for a
>             prolonged period exceeding that which is considered normal
>             for such a conceptual row."
>
>Thanks,
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Minnie Lu [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:37 PM
>To: Eduardo Cardona
>Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Donati Andrew-MGIA0477; [email protected]; Randy
>Presuhn; Keske Tom-LTK002; Azlina Ahmad; Minnie Lu; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo
>List
>Subject: Re: V2 Changes for next RFI v2 MIB (draft 10)
>
>
>Hi, Eduardo,
>
>    Thanks a lot for listening to me. I am happy with the new text.
>
>     But I still have concern about saving notInService or notReady rows
>for
>modulation profiles into NVRAM and have them persistent across CMTS
>reboot,  especially for the rows with inconsistent attributes which is
>allowed for rowStatus in 'notInService' and 'notReady'.
>
>    Though this is extreme case, but since the MIB or spec does not
>prevent
>to do so or does not make it optional, that means CMTS MUST implement
>such
>capability to save rows with inconsistent attributes into NVRAM which is
>a
>waste of CMTS resource and complicated the implementation for no or
>little
>gain.
>
>    Possible to make it an optional that saving rows with inconsistent
>attributes into NVRAM and persistent across reboot ?
>
>     Thanks a lot for your advice !
>     Minnie
>
>
>
>
>At 10:27 AM 4/15/2004 -0600, Eduardo Cardona wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Please find attached the summary of changes after all your feedback,
> >special thanks to Randy Presuhn for all the detailed comments.
> >
> >Please note that the storageType objects are being set as CMTS only
> >requirement docsIfCmtsGroupV2  since the CM compliances are read-only
> >or any other tables do not apply to CMs.
> >
> >Change #9 for the docsIfCmRangingTimeout please review the other
> >question sent to the list and OSSI reflector
> >
> >Please see if the coments are being captured properly.
> >
> >
> >PDF has the color change, also attached text file for convenience.
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Eduardo
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IPCDN mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn