RE: Liaison from ETSI AT-Digital re. packet Cable MIBs

Jean-Francois,
 
My comments on the ETSI document:
 
1. NCS Service Flow Mechanism. There has already been a lengthy discussion on this topic. See ipcdn email trail (among others)  <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01229.html> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01229.html.
 
Agree with deletion of the pktcSigServiceClassNameUS, pktcSigServiceClassNameDS, pktcSigServiceClassNameMask objects.
 
Note: ETSI has also recommended the pktcSigNcsServiceFlowState object be deleted. I don't recall a separate discussion regarding the pktcSigNcsServiceFlowState object specifically on the reflector. Perhaps it always intended to be associated with the SCN objects and the deletion discussion. Comments?
 
2. Ringing Cadences. Agree. Minor object description wording changes are ok as well. The WG already reached consensus on this issue. See ipcdn email trail:  <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01119.html> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01119.html and  <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01122.html> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01122.html.
 
3. Value Ranges (pktcSigDevToneDbLevel  object). Agree. The WG already reached consensus on this issue. See ipcdn email trail:  <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01131.html> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01131.html
 
Gordon

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