From: IETF IPCDN Co-chairs Richard Woundy (Comcast) Jean-Francois Mule (CableLabs) To: Simon Kang (UPC), ETSI Rapporteur ETSI AT working group Digital Ted Laverack (ETSI) Cc: Wim De Ketelaere (tComLabs) Gordon Beacham (Motorola BCS) Bert Wijnen (Lucent), IETF Area Director Bill Utlaut, Ed Miller (CableLabs) Christie Poland (CableLabs) RE: ETSI liaison from ETSI AT-Digital, AT-D AT#9(2004)D_25 We would like to thank ETSI and Simon Kang of UPC, Rapporteur of the ETSI AT-D IPCablecom MIB requirements for your continued support of the work of the IETF IP over Cable Data Network (IPCDN) working group in creating one common set of MIBs standardized in IETF. We have received the ETSI liaison statement dated from June 8 2004 regarding the IPCablecom MIB requirements. This note constitutes the IPCDN working group response. It first provides some information on the ipcdn schedule and timeline to publish the RFCs. It also documents the IPCDN working group consensus on the ETSI technical comments. Best regards, Rich Woundy and Jean-Francois Mule IETF IPCDN co-chairs --- 1. Request for information about the ipcdn schedule for the --- approval of the ietf ipcdn packetcable mibs to published RFC --- status taking account of all ETSI comments as summarised in the --- liaison statement AT-D AT#9(2004)D_25 As of July 2004, the 3 IPCDN wg Internet-Drafts in question are "work in progress" documents: draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-mtamib-04, draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-05, draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-03. The procedures for advancing IETF Internet-Drafts are described in BCP 9, RFC2026 (and some procedures are explained in RFC 3160). It is the intent of the IPCDN wg chairs to advance those Internet-Drafts to publication via a formal "publication request" to the IETF Operations and Management Area Directors and our Area Advisor for ipcdn, Bert Wijnen after the following conditions are met: a) all the ETSI comments received in the liaison have been addressed and integrated in revised drafts; Based on the information we have received from the authors and editors of those drafts, we believe that the MTA MIB draft04 and MTA Signaling MIB draft05 revisions address all the ETSI comments. b) Working group last call is passed We have issued a Working Group Last Call notice on July 21st 2004 for the MTA MIB draft04 and MTA Signaling MIB draft05. c) Expert MIB doctor reviews are complete and revised drafts published The assignment of MIB doctors will occur now that the revised drafts are published. A timeline for completion of MIB doctor reviews will be defined. We expect that revised drafts addressing all the MIB doctor comments will be published in September 2004. Following the wg chair formal "publication request" to the Area Directors, the work of the working group is usually considered complete. As stated above, we expect to conclude our work on the IPCDN PacketCable/IPCablecom MIBs in September 2004. The standard IETF process will then follow its course with IESG Review and approval (including IETF Last Call) and, upon successful completion of the last call announcement, the final documents will be sent to the RFC Editors. A rough timeline for the final IETF steps is difficult to predict and we will have a better estimate once the IETF Last Call is complete. --- 2. Response to ETSI technical recommendations We note that all the ETSI recommendations relate to one IPCDN Internet-Draft: ID: draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-03. We assume the other drafts have been reviewed by ETSI and meet your requirements. 2.1) NCS service flow mechanism: The IPCDN working group is in agreement with the ETSI recommendation to delete the following 4 MIB objects from draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-03: pktcSigServiceClassNameUS, pktcSigServiceClassNameDS, pktcSigServiceClassNameMask, and pktcSigNcsServiceFlowState. 2.2) Ringing cadences: The IPCDN working group is in agreement with the ETSI recommendation to change the definition of the PktcRingCadence textual-convention and its use for every ring cadence defined in the MIB. Note that this topic had already been discussed on IPCDN in March 2004 and that we had reached agreement to change the SYNTAX of the textual-convention. The ETSI liaison makes some additional editorial suggestions in the DESCRIPTION clause of the textual convention and we accept those comments. See ipcdn email references at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01119.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipcdn/current/msg01122.html 2.3) Value Ranges: We note that ETSI supports the IPCDN discussions to change the value range of the pktcSigDevToneDbLevel object to pktcSigDevToneDbLevel OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX TenthdBm (-250..-30) The IPCDN wg has reached consensus on the above change and the new value range (-250..-30) will be reflected in the revised draft04. Note that the value range of some other MIB objects were also discussed on the IPCDN list and that some changes will be reflected in the upcoming draft04, for e.g., the range of pktcSigPulseSignalDbLevel is changed from (-250..152) to (-350...0). The above comments 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have been addressed in draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-05.