[13:14:02] --- rwoundy has joined
[13:14:02] --- rwoundy has left
[13:15:10] --- rwoundy has joined
[13:15:31] <rwoundy> we covered the meeting agenda
[13:15:47] <rwoundy> we passed out blue sheets
[13:16:13] <rwoundy> lots of draft updates (13), but no updates for the CableHome MIBs
[13:16:47] <rwoundy> we covered the co-chair proposal for making realistic wg deadlines for the existing drafts
[13:17:16] <rwoundy> event notification mib needs a new author
[13:17:57] <rwoundy> folks (azlina, greg) asked if there were comments on the event notification mib; there have been some comments from some reviewers (mib doctor?)
[13:18:25] <rwoundy> slides on rf mib v2
[13:19:29] <rwoundy> draft 09 is expected to be posted the week of Nov 17
[13:19:45] <rwoundy> rf mib v2 draft 09 will be the last revision before moving the draft forward
[13:19:59] <rwoundy> moving to the Cable Device mib draft 06
[13:20:58] <rwoundy> slide 10 in http://www.ipcdn.org/meetings/ipcdn-agenda-111103.ppt
[13:21:15] <rwoundy> Rich covered the changes in draft 06 - see text inside the ppt
[13:21:26] <rwoundy> quiestion from Greg:
[13:22:19] <rwoundy> is it an either or in the use of the4 diffserv mib filters vs. the legacy ones in RFC 2669
[13:22:26] <rwoundy> yes
[13:22:34] <rwoundy> Bert Wijnen clarified:
[13:22:39] <rwoundy> deprecation means
[13:23:16] <rwoundy> new implementations must implement the diffserv objects
[13:23:38] <rwoundy> so it's really not either or for new implementations
[13:25:06] <rwoundy> From an IETF and SMI standpoint, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for new implementations to implement the Diffserv mib objects (a proposed standard for over 1 year now)
[13:26:42] <rwoundy> new implementations MAY implement the legacy deprecated objects too for backward compatibility
[13:28:12] <rwoundy> now to the Status slide 17
[13:31:10] <rwoundy> we discussed the impact of changing the upperbound size of docs
[13:31:20] <rwoundy> docsDevSwFilename
[13:31:49] <rwoundy> the snmp agent must do a check already today on a SET
[13:32:51] <rwoundy> so there should be no impact on implementation
[13:32:57] <rwoundy> moving to the sub mgmt
[13:33:14] <rwoundy> went thru the slides, no question, sub mgmt will move to IESG asap
[13:33:44] <rwoundy> BPI+ slides
[13:35:11] <rwoundy> no comments, will move to IESG
[13:35:34] <rwoundy> QoS MIB
[13:35:40] <rwoundy> slide 25
[13:36:49] <rwoundy> We explained the concern of IP TOS vs DSCP
[13:38:40] <rwoundy> The objects in question are
[13:39:02] <rwoundy> docsQosPktClassIpTosLow, docsQosPktClassIpTosHigh and docsQosPktClassIpTosMask
[13:39:46] <rwoundy> Bert made the comment that they are read-only
[13:41:38] <rwoundy> Randy Presuhn made the comment that this should not be a problem as long as the conversion from our current TOS byte to a DSCP byte is well documented in the mib document
[13:41:49] <rwoundy> this is not there yet and should probably be added
[13:44:11] <rwoundy> Resolution on TOS byte concern
[13:44:18] <rwoundy> - added text in section 4
[13:44:24] <rwoundy> to state the mapping
[13:45:26] <rwoundy> - also add similar text to the description clauses, so that when the mib is extracted from the rfc/i-d, the information about ip tos is still there
[13:46:24] <rwoundy> no comments on the other qos mib changes for v9 (e.g. snmpadminstring changes)
[13:46:41] <rwoundy> mta mib
[13:46:57] <rwoundy> new draft has been posted one month, no comments
[13:47:19] <rwoundy> mike heard provided an 'initial' mib doctor review, doesn't have time at the moment to finish the review
[13:48:02] <rwoundy> ping bert again on monday for mib doctor availability
[13:48:50] <rwoundy> etsi and cablelabs have been collaborating closely on the signaling mib
[13:49:15] <rwoundy> no mib doctor review yet; wglc is done with this
[13:49:53] <rwoundy> when do we involve ITU and ETSI for formal comments? before or after mib doctor review? next itu sg9 meeting is in january
[13:50:36] <rwoundy> would be preferable to get mib doctor review before actual sg9 meeting (ping bert)
[13:50:48] <rwoundy> managment event mib
[13:51:39] <rwoundy> lots of comments (e.g. from azlina) on management event mib; aligned syslog precedence with docsis and syslog mib; incorporated in draft 02
[13:52:02] <rwoundy> this mib is not required for cablelabs certification at this point
[13:52:23] <rwoundy> cablehome mibs; not a lot of comments (except from randy p. on using the ping mib)
[13:53:03] <rwoundy> status of ping mib: looking to go from proposed to draft standard, why not use the ping mib?
[13:53:47] <rwoundy> cablelabs has analyzed ping mib; 80% overlap according to analysis
[13:54:29] <rwoundy> cablehome test mib only has one test at a time; ping mib permits multiple tests at a time
[13:56:02] <rwoundy> cablelabs folks should be able to form a ping mib compliance statement for feedback from the disman wg in next two weeks
[13:56:27] <rwoundy> (maybe disman can create new ping mib object groups that make it easier to leverage in external mibs, e.g. cablehome)
[13:58:10] <rwoundy> reviewed plans for promoting, finalizing, reviewing current ipcdn mibs
[13:58:48] <rwoundy> co-chairs will look for serious commitments from authors to make sure we make revised milestones
[14:04:13] <rwoundy> signing off
[14:04:19] --- rwoundy has left: Disconnected