[ipcdn] RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?
"Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@cablelabs.com> Wed, 08 October 2003 18:01 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29958 for <ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7IcQ-00077Q-AX for ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:01:04 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h98I12HG027353 for ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:01:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7IcP-00076a-Jp; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:01:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A7Ibj-00073k-3z for ipcdn@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:00:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29910 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ibg-0001y5-00 for ipcdn@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:00:16 -0400
Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com ([192.160.73.61]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A7Ibf-0001xC-00 for ipcdn@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:00:15 -0400
Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com (srvxchg.cablelabs.com [10.5.0.20]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h98HxH12020936; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:59:19 -0600 (MDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:59:18 -0600
Message-ID: <E39B4DE185291A4CBDFDD896F16EB33302B632@srvxchg.cablelabs.com>
Thread-Topic: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?
Thread-Index: AcONuQVPDPrksp5zSZGn/aebAJhI7gADFmyg
From: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@cablelabs.com>
To: Murwin William-LWM008 <W.Murwin@motorola.com>, "IPCDN (E-mail) (E-mail)" <ipcdn@ietf.org>
Cc: "Michael W. Patrick (E-mail)" <mpatrick@dma.isg.mot.com>, Minnie Lu <milu@cisco.com>, Jean-Francois Mule <jf.mule@cablelabs.com>, Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com
X-Approved: ondar
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [ipcdn] RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ?
Sender: ipcdn-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipcdn-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
William, I could be not clear on that, Look at BPI draft 11 a note added by Jean-Francois added [RFC3291] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., Schoenwaelder, J., "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 3291, May 2002. ************************************************************ * NOTES TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) * * * * 1.) The I-D <draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-01.txt> (or a * * successor) is expected to eventually replace RFC 3291. * * If that draft (or a successor) is published as an RFC * * prior to or concurrently with this document, then the * * normative reference [RFC3291] should be updated to * * point to the replacement RFC, and the reference tag * * [RFC3291] should be updated to match. * * * ************************************************************ [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002. Thanks Eduardo -----Original Message----- From: Murwin William-LWM008 [mailto:W.Murwin@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:26 AM To: Eduardo Cardona; IPCDN (E-mail) (E-mail) Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Eduardo, (1) I am not sure if the QOS MIB is allowed to change [10] to be RFI v2 MIB. [10] currently references RFC2670 RF-MIB, which is still applicable, because RF-MIBv2 has to maintain backward compatiblity with RFC2670. The ietf draft guideline specifically say that: " It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."" http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt Also according to RFC2026: ******************************************************** * * * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * * with an Internet-Draft. * * * ******************************************************** Note: It is acceptable to reference a standards-track specification that may reasonably be expected to be published as an RFC using the phrase "Work in Progress" without referencing an Internet-Draft. This may also be done in a standards track document itself as long as the specification in which the reference is made would stand as a complete and understandable document with or without the reference to the "Work in Progress". To me this means the RF-MIB v2 would have to be published as another document an we could cite that within the QOS-MIB. Rich, do you know if it is acceptable to cite another "ietf-draft" and if their are examples of this within other "ietf-drafts"? I will address your other questions in a email to come Will Murwin -----Original Message----- From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:e.cardona@CableLabs.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:08 AM To: Murwin William-LWM008 Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Hi William, Minnie, Rich, Before complete issue#14 for discussion, Could you please review my assupmtions for the cross- RFI/QOS MIB interoperability issue#14 attached document? I have some concerns ( no comments still for item #13 Counters in/out CmtsCmStatusTable as you proposed and I relauched with Q to solve by Ipcdn participants thinking in the operational environment for 1-2 years ahead. Also how it is adjustable with already propietary methods supported supported, ( they migth and will stay there... Since we do not have resolution for #13 yet, and for keeping some sort of legacy support ( Minnie Lu comments ), I do not know for sure if those restrictions are useful right now due the divergency in current implementations. I like the cleanest as possible solution ( starting from William already wrote Qos interoperability section, but I don't know its possible impacts in the field applications or if handle the exceptions/violation out of specification /Qualification for MSOs considerations Thanks Eduardo -----Original Message----- From: Murwin William-LWM008 [mailto:W.Murwin@motorola.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:23 AM To: Eduardo Cardona Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Yes item 5 from section 2.2.2.1 has been removed -----Original Message----- From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:e.cardona@CableLabs.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:02 PM To: Murwin William-LWM008 Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); Minnie Lu; Jean-Francois Mule; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Hi William, Just to confirm that you are planning to delete only the item 5 in 2.2.2.1 for the coming draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-09.txt I will propose a similar wording and section in the RFI v2 mib and any extra information you have will be very valuable Thanks Eduardo -----Original Message----- From: Murwin William-LWM008 [mailto:W.Murwin@motorola.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:23 PM To: 'Minnie Lu'; Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com; DOCSIS OSS Majordomo List; IPCDN (E-mail) (E-mail) Cc: Michael W. Patrick (E-mail); David Raftus (E-mail) Subject: RE: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Minnie, After much consideration, DOCSIS QOS MIB version 9 will remove the text from section Section 2.2.2.1 Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0: 5. At the CMTS, the Docsis 1.0 MIB objects docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets for a SID assigned to a Docsis 1.1 or Docsis 2.0 modem count only the pre-registration packets/bytes of those modems." This is not an issue for the QOS MIB. The QOS MIB tried to handle DOCSIS 1.1 changes to RFC2670. Now that rfc2670 is being obsoleted, the rf-mib v2 and the DOCSIS OSS Specs is the place that should clearly state how these counters and other tables interact in DOCSIS 1.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and DOCSIS 2.0. I would even hope to see a section in the rf-mib v2, "Interoperation with the version of DOCSIS" like or to replace what the DOCSIS QOS MIB has. This is the place to describe what table are populated under the docsIfMib when the the modems are registering. This way this issue can be re-discussed and whatever conculsion is reached, can be document in the description of those objects. Sincerely, Will Murwin -----Original Message----- From: Minnie Lu [mailto:milu@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:16 PM To: Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com; docsis-oss@cablelabs.com Cc: milu@cisco.com Subject: sid counter inconsistent between draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt and DOCS-IF-MIB ? Hi, Since I have not yet got any reason for the sid counter inconsistence, I would like to raise this issue again and hope this time, people will reconsider it. In draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-08.txt, 1. Section 2.2.2.1 Interoperation with DOCSIS 1.0 "5. At the CMTS, the Docsis 1.0 MIB objects docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets for a SID assigned to a Docsis 1.1 or Docsis 2.0 modem count only the pre-registration packets/bytes of those modems." Maybe I miss some discussion before. If there was some discussion before, please excuse me to bring this up again because I really don't understand why this is necessary to enforce this rule. SID concept is still applicable to DOCSIS1.1 or 2.0. The MIB objects docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets and docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets definitions look good to me even for DOCSIS1.1 or 2.0. docsIfCmtsServiceInOctets OBJECT-TYPE "The cumulative number of Packet Data octets received on this Service ID. The count does not include the size of the Cable MAC header" docsIfCmtsServiceInPackets OBJECT-TYPE "The cumulative number of Packet Data packets received on this Service ID." From the description, it seems to me that they will count all the traffic including pre-registration and post-registration received on this Service ID no matter that this Service ID associates with DOCSIS1.0 or DOCSIS1.1 or DOCSIS2.0 CMs. So they are consistent for various version of CMs mode. Also, in the same section, item 3 . "The docsIfCmServiceTable row for the DOCSIS 1.1 or DOCSIS 2.0 modem continues to exist, and the various statistic objects in that row are incremented." It sounds to me the item 4 is inconsistent with item 3 above. For the same MIB object, it counts differently in CM and CMTS for the SIDs associated with DOCSIS1.1 CMs. I think it is good to keep CM and CMTS the same as described in item 3. Also when customer queries the docsIfCmtsServiceTable, the customer might wonder why some entries have low count and not aware of they are for the SID belongs to CM in DOCSIS1.1 mode. I noticed this is not in version 4. From v5, it starts having such statements. Thanks ! Minnie _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
- [ipcdn] RE: sid counter inconsistent between draf… Eduardo Cardona