[15:24:19] --- bert has joined
[15:36:01] --- rwoundy has joined
[15:54:47] --- jean-francois has joined
[15:54:57] <jean-francois> test
[15:56:31] --- jean-francois has left
[15:59:56] --- jean-francois has joined
[16:17:21] --- jean-francois has left
[16:17:27] --- jean-francois has joined
[16:18:23] --- jean-francois has left
[16:21:21] <bert> rich, are you in the meeting room?
[16:41:10] --- jean-francois has joined
[16:41:17] --- Eduardo has joined
[16:41:18] <jean-francois> we are in the meeting now
[16:41:22] <jean-francois> can you read me?
[16:41:32] <bert> yes I am hearing you guys
[16:41:42] <Eduardo> I am
[16:42:12] <bert> how many people are there?
[16:42:17] --- rwoundy has left: Lost connection
[16:42:21] <jean-francois> the slides for the meeting are posted at:
[16:42:23] <jean-francois> http://www.ipcdn.org/meetings/ipcdn-agenda-030805.ppt
[16:43:05] <jean-francois> there are 7 people in the Carver room of IETF
[16:43:22] <bert> finish by june! Wow!
[16:43:44] <jean-francois> we are on page 2
[16:44:03] <jean-francois> is June too aggressive for "wg done" meaning we request publication on the last IDs?
[16:44:27] <jean-francois> we can work this out with you the AD Bert
[16:44:42] <jean-francois> an 8th person joined the meeting here
[16:44:56] <jean-francois> --- slide 3
[16:45:01] <jean-francois> --- slide 4
[16:45:43] <jean-francois> the event notification is on the AD review - we need to ping Bert
[16:46:21] <bert> I hope to pick up your MIB reviews (event and RFIv2) soon. possibly towards end of next week
[16:46:41] <bert> nono... I was just surprised!
[16:46:47] <bert> If you can make it, fine!
[16:47:53] <jean-francois> ok we are aiming for those dates
[16:48:03] <jean-francois> --- slide 6
[16:48:56] <jean-francois> event notification: in draft 06, Greg N thinks he incorporated all AD & wg comments he knows about
[16:48:57] <bert> OK, I will look at it next week
[16:49:18] <bert> Do ping me though say Tuesday
[16:49:25] <jean-francois> I will
[16:50:21] <jean-francois> --- slide 7
[16:50:26] <jean-francois> Kevin Marez speaking
[16:50:33] <jean-francois> --- slide 8
[16:50:38] <bert> thanks for coming to the mike
[16:50:58] <jean-francois> Kevin indicates that the link on that page contains all the enumerated changes
[16:51:06] <jean-francois> http://www.ipcdn.org/meetings/cdmib-07-changes.doc
[16:51:14] <jean-francois> diff at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipcdn/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2/draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-07-from-06.diff.html
[16:51:16] <bert> is Randy present?
[16:51:48] <jean-francois> no (Randy sent me a note stating that he had to be out of town due to an unplanned event)
[16:51:53] <jean-francois> --- slide 9
[16:52:07] <jean-francois> (he committed to review the new draft once published though)
[16:52:20] <jean-francois> --- slide 10
[16:52:26] <jean-francois> open issues
[16:53:37] <Eduardo> I can volunteer to take a look to the docsDevGroupV2 to make that to compile
[16:53:38] <jean-francois> There are some warnings when compiling the mib (primary set of errors = current compliance group making reference to deprecated object groups)
[16:53:45] <bert> Mmm... not sure that will work. Current compliance cannot use deprecated object groups.
[16:53:51] <jean-francois> those are actually deliberate
[16:53:59] <bert> May need to have 2 compliance statements then. I will take a look
[16:54:08] <Eduardo> perhaps a deprecated group
[16:54:18] <bert> Yeah I hear that you did it deliberately.
[16:54:58] <bert> ok we can take that offline.
[16:55:22] <jean-francois> ok
[16:55:38] <bert> Would be good if Rich can indeed point out the text that makes him think it is OK
[16:55:47] <jean-francois> yes
[16:56:00] <jean-francois> will try to make sure that gets in the meeting notes
[16:56:04] <jean-francois> --- slide 11
[16:56:32] <jean-francois> we are talking about docsDevEvReporting
[16:56:59] <jean-francois> and how the trap value in that object may "overlap" with RFC3413 per one of Randy's comments
[16:57:11] <jean-francois> any comments on this issue?
[16:57:18] <jean-francois> Kevin Marez at the mike
[16:58:04] <jean-francois> he is going to propose a solution and send text to the list
[16:58:43] <jean-francois> the clarification would be that the RFC 3413 covers when you operate in SNMPv3 mode, but in SNMP v1/v2c mode, the docsDevEvReporting could still be applicable
[16:59:00] <bert> I am hearing you all fine
[16:59:16] <jean-francois> the issue is that there is no clear overlap (since the docsDevEvReporting uses syslog)
[16:59:19] <jean-francois> any comments?
[16:59:24] <jean-francois> from the jabber room?
[16:59:33] <Eduardo> I do not think that;s the point, SNMP-v3 coexistence still uses RFC 3413
[17:00:12] <jean-francois> ok, i related your comment Eduardo
[17:00:16] <Eduardo> docsDev is a Higher level of gouping events before going to the RFC 3413 filtering mechanism for dispatching
[17:00:19] <jean-francois> we will take that one to the list
[17:01:01] <jean-francois> yes but Randy's email clearly pointed to the issue that the docsDevEvReporting objects does somewhat conflict or overlap with RFC 3413
[17:01:15] <jean-francois> Kevin will send the original comment from Randy and a proposal for discussion
[17:01:23] <jean-francois> ok?
[17:01:30] <jean-francois> --- slide 12
[17:01:33] <Eduardo> ok
[17:02:02] <jean-francois> open issue 3 will go to the list
[17:02:02] <Eduardo> Are we going to mandate RFC 3014?
[17:02:32] <jean-francois> not a clear given this is an RFC 2669 update
[17:02:36] <jean-francois> to the list
[17:02:48] <jean-francois> that's it for cable device mib
[17:02:53] <jean-francois> --- slide 16
[17:03:04] <jean-francois> RFI MIB, eduardo editor
[17:03:12] <jean-francois> --- slide 17
[17:03:41] <jean-francois> (sorry, did not mean to cut you on cd mib but it is hard to have a discussion on those issues via Jabber when the room does not have strong opinions)
[17:04:02] <jean-francois> Do you know when draft 14 should be submitted Eduardo?
[17:04:18] <Eduardo> As soon as I got resolution,
[17:04:18] <jean-francois> --- slide 18
[17:04:51] <jean-francois> ok can you resend email questions/proposals and drive consensus on the list - please?
[17:05:06] <Eduardo> I will
[17:05:50] <jean-francois> Rich at the mike
[17:05:55] <jean-francois> moving to slide 21
[17:06:03] <jean-francois> --- slide 22 now
[17:06:38] <jean-francois> we are asking in the room if folks have any comments on slide 19-22
[17:06:58] <jean-francois> noone is overly reacting... we should take this to the list
[17:07:11] <jean-francois> ok Eduardo?
[17:07:22] <jean-francois> --- slide 27
[17:07:26] <jean-francois> BPI +
[17:07:38] <Eduardo> that;s fine, pledging for quick resolution of some of them, but will iterate them in the list
[17:08:05] <jean-francois> --- slide 28
[17:08:11] <jean-francois> indicates last changes in BPI+
[17:08:21] <jean-francois> passing the jabber scribe to Rich
[17:08:43] <jean-francois> this is now rich
[17:08:47] <bert> hooray!
[17:08:56] <jean-francois> we are on the mta mib slides
[17:09:16] <jean-francois> slide 31
[17:09:50] <jean-francois> jf is editing the slides just so he can see the slide numbers :)
[17:09:59] <jean-francois> -- slide 31
[17:12:11] <bert> right the issue was to make sure it was machine readable (unambiguously)
[17:15:04] <jean-francois> shall we release a draft 07 or wait for ad review?
[17:15:10] <jean-francois> for the mta mib?
[17:15:15] <bert> either way is fine with me
[17:15:33] <bert> but I probably won't get to this one before later next week if not the week after
[17:15:35] <jean-francois> updated draft by the end of march
[17:15:37] <bert> makes sense
[17:15:50] <jean-francois> -- slide 32
[17:16:07] <jean-francois> -- slide 33
[17:19:03] <jean-francois> -- slide 34
[17:19:04] <bert> no real echo
[17:19:09] <bert> sound is fine
[17:19:13] <jean-francois> thanks :)
[17:19:25] <jean-francois> -- slide 35
[17:19:56] <bert> new WG Last Call indeed makes sense
[17:20:30] <jean-francois> that's what we'll do
[17:20:47] <jean-francois> -- slide 36, 37
[17:23:16] <bert> if people start implementing though... then better get wider review rsn
[17:23:32] <jean-francois> yes
[17:23:38] <jean-francois> mib dr?
[17:23:55] <jean-francois> same as docsis event notification mib?
[17:23:57] <jean-francois> randy?
[17:24:07] <bert> I can try to get him (pls send a reminder to Randy and me)
[17:24:26] <jean-francois> will do
[17:24:31] <jean-francois> --slide 40
[17:24:44] <jean-francois> -- slide 412
[17:24:48] <jean-francois> 41
[17:26:01] <bert> so is there no activity within CableLabs and/or CableHome either?
[17:27:47] <bert> So there seems to be interest, just no energy to do any work in IETF.
[17:28:01] <bert> Will they be published in CableHome?
[17:28:11] <bert> I am listening while JF is answering
[17:28:34] <jean-francois> i am waiting too
[17:31:31] <bert> their cableHome mibs are not rooted under mib-2 I assume?
[17:32:29] <bert> ok, then we have to worry a bit less (from an IETF point of view)
[17:32:34] <jean-francois> yes
[17:33:59] <bert> your explanations are fair and accepted
[17:34:27] <bert> So we need to update the charter and then at same time can update milestones
[17:34:43] <jean-francois> yes
[17:35:37] <jean-francois> -- slide 42
[17:40:22] <bert> thanks and see you next time
[17:40:33] <jean-francois> thanks!
[17:41:23] <bert> Do realize that the Mikes are still active!
[17:43:35] <bert> OK, now it seems disconnected
[17:48:34] --- bert has left
[18:17:03] --- jean-francois has left: Disconnected
[20:17:56] --- Eduardo has left: Disconnected