[ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt
"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Thu, 29 April 2004 21:56 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA04715 for <ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJJPk-0007oU-7h for ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:49:52 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3TLnq3A030030 for ipcdn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:49:52 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJJEq-000537-Gh; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:38:36 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BJJ4F-0000QY-Lv for ipcdn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:27:39 -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 RAA03750 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:27:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BJJ48-0000T3-0C for ipcdn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:27:32 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BJJ3F-0000Q2-00 for ipcdn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:26:38 -0400
Received: from turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.126]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BJJ2W-0000MJ-00; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:25:52 -0400
Received: from h-68-164-86-185.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.164.86.185] helo=oemcomputer) by turkey.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BJJ2Y-000093-00; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:25:54 -0700
Message-ID: <000601c42e31$1d229f60$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: disman@ietf.org
Cc: ipcdn@ietf.org
References: <2147483647.1082974262@[10.1.1.171]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:29:54 -0700
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Subject: [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt
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>
Hi - Are there any objections to proceding as Juergen and Eduardo suggest? I'd like to see comment (pro or contra) on the specific questions Juergen raised below. Randy, disman WG chair > From: "Juergen Quittek" <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> > To: "Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; <disman@ietf.org> > Cc: "Ipcdn List (E-mail)" <ipcdn@ietf.org> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:11 AM > Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt > > Eduardo, > > Thank you for raising this issue and my apologies for this > very late reply. > > I ran into similar problems several times where a well designed > technology was too mighty or too general for being implemented > at small devices. > > Your suggestions aim at introducing additional MODULE-COMPLIANCE > clauses to the PING-MIB, the TRACEROUTE-MIB and LOOKUP-MIB modules > for allowing simpler implementations with smaller footprints. > > I support your proposal, but have a few comments, see below. > I am willing to make suggestions for minimalCompliance clauses > for the MIB modules, but first the WG should agree on two issues: > > - Is it agreed to add such clauses, that definitely require > less funtionality to be implemented? > > - what is the preferred procedure for columnar objects that > are not required for minimal compliancy? We can either > allow them to be missing completely. But this would result > in non-consecutive numbering of the remaining objects in > the minimal tables. Or we require them to be implemented > as read-only indicating that the feature that they would > serve in full compliancy is not supported. > > Please find further comments inline. > > Juergen > -- > Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 > NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 > Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.ccrle.nec.de > > > --On 02.03.2004 10:04 h -0700 Eduardo Cardona wrote: > > Randy, > > > > Few comments, > > > > I review the MIB and appears compelling respect to previous RFC > > > > Just one comment > > > > > > (*) traceRouteCtlMiscOptions > > It appears to me an uncanny object and rather implementations may opt to > > extend the capabilities in the private branch, could leave with that to > > avoid deprecation, of if there are field implementations. > > Currently, the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause traceRouteCompliance requests > implementation of this object, but it may be implemented as read-only > and returning always a value of zero, if there is not further semantics > defined for it. Do you suggest to completely remove the object or to > state in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause that it does not need to be > implemented? > > > Regardless of the additions to the MIB I apologize for the late notice, > > > > Before sending a complete proposal and get your concept of the best > > approach, below is the proposal to add a simplified Compliance > > statement for devices not requiring to keep constant status of > > PING/TRACEROUTE operations, only remote operation per operator request. > > > > > > We are looking at your comments about the clear overlap in > > draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt > > With IPCDN draft > > http://www.ipcdn.org/drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-cable-gateway-tools-mib-00. > > txt ( currently out of date in IETF drafts site) which is clearly a > > subset of the DISMAN-PING-MIB > > Lectors refer to > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipcdn/current/msg00818. > > html > > > > Should the proposal below being include in the remops MIB or should we > > update IPCDN cable gateway Tools MIB module to be just the compliance > > statement outlined below? > > I doubt that it is a good idea to replicate large portions of the PING-MIB > in the IPCDN cable gateway Tools MIB module, as it is done right now. > > > RFC 3014 (LOG-MIB) introduces the concept of "named log" and "null named > > log" default entry for devices not supporting the named log > > Named log is analog to disman remops draft for "OwnerIndex" and > > "TestName" where default entries are created > > (null owner, null TestName) for a manager requested operation of PING/ > > TRACEROUTE, NSLOOKUP, mostly for small foot-print devices with no > > network monitoring role at the connectivity level as pretended with this > > updated RFC. > > I don't think the remops MIB modules forbid null-named entries in the > respective tables. But currently the support of a read-write > pingCtlRowStatus is mandatory. > > Is your concrete suggestion to add something like > > OBJECT XXRowStatus > MIN-ACCESS read-only > DESCRIPTION > "Implementations may disallow the creation of named entries." > > with XX=pingCtl,traceRouteCtl,lookupCtl? > > > In summary A new Compliance Statement for small devices with no > > monitoring capabilities to : > > 1) remove the constant pulling and login information > > 2) remove the test row creation > > - CTL* Results* tables only default entries (null owner, null > > TestName) > > 3) History* tables not required. > > - New basicGroups to exclude History* objects and other objects > > which are not relevant to the simplified > > system. > > - Create an additional set of Compliance statements to require the > > new Groups and other objects Compliance > > requirements MIN-ACCESS clauses mainly > > > > Schema of the content of the new Compliance statement: > > > > List of objects not to include in basicPingGroup OBJECT-GROUP clause > > qnd/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: > > pingMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove > > Could also be read-only returning 1. > > > pingCtlDataFill -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only default > > value is OK > > pingCtlFrequency -- remove Only one test > > Could also be read-only returning 0. > > > pingCtlType -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only > > pingCtlByPassRouteTable -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only > > pingCtlDSField -- MIN-ACCESS read-only > > pingCtlStorageType -- remove > > pingCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) > > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) > > Why don't you consider removing this object? > > > pingCtlIfIndex -- not to include > > pingProbeHistory* -- not to include. > > > > List of objects not to include in basicTraceRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP > > clause and/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: > > traceRouteMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove > > traceRouteCtlType -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only > > traceRouteCtlDSField -- MIN-ACCESS read-only > > traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only > > traceRouteCtlIfIndex -- not to include > > traceRouteCtlMiscOptions -- not to include > > traceRouteCtlDontFragment -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only > > traceRouteCtlInitialTtl -- remove or MIN-ACCESS > > traceRouteCtlFrequency -- remove only one test > > traceRouteCtlDescr -- remove > > traceRouteCtlCreateHopsEntries -- remove HopsEntries not required. > > traceRouteCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) > > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) > > traceRouteCtlStorageType -- remove > > traceRouteProbeHistory* -- not to include. > > > > List of objects not to include in basicLookupGroup OBJECT-GROUP clause > > and/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: > > lookupMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove > > lookupPurgeTime -- remove > > lookupCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) > > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > Eduardo > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:44 PM > > To: disman@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on > > draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt > > > > > > > > Hi - > > > >> From: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@CableLabs.com> > >> Sent: Mar 2, 2004 9:25 AM > >> To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, disman@ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on > >> draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt > > ... > >> One simple note, I tough last call was March 5th > > > > No, it was supposed to end March 2. However, I'm not > > going to hand it to our AD until I can be reasonably sure > > that it has received adequate review. > > > >> We at Cablelabs are interested in adding a simplified compliance > >> statement for ad-hoc procedure call instead of a user entry schecule > >> entry, so an user can do a one time execution e.g PING > > > > It would have been nice to have learned of this earlier, rather than > > during WG last call. > > > >> The draft we had is almost complete, > >> Would be that an opportunity to add that? I can post that tomorrow in > >> the list if compeling > > ... > > > > I'd like to have this discussion sooner rather than later, so please > > make > > your specific proposal as quickly as you can. My opinion as a technical > > contributor is that the case for these changes would need to be fairly > > compelling if they would result in the remote operations MIB cycling > > at proposed rather than advancing to draft standard. As working group > > chair, I want to ensure that whatever course we take reflects WG > > consensus. So, balancing the need for bringing this to a conclusion > > with > > the need to ensure that the technical issues are properly considered, > > I'll entertain discussion of this issue ("ad hoc procedure call") until > > Friday noon (Korean Time). Shortly thereafter I'll make a call on > > whether there is consensus to modify the draft regarding this specific > > proposal. > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Juergen Quittek
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Juergen Quittek
- [ipcdn] Disman WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-… Randy Presuhn