Re: [ipcdn] Re: MTA MIB draft06 - AD comment #38

[Thomas Anders <thomas.anders at blue-cable.de>]

Jean-Francois Mule wrote:
> Thomas wrote:
> > Then, still, why is the first part needed to address
> > comment #38 here (pktcMtaDevSnmpEntity), but not for pktcMtaDevCmsFqdn
> > where you proposed:
> >
> > > pktcMtaDevCmsFqdn
> > >           The MTA must resolve the CMS FQDN as required
> > >           by the corresponding PacketCable Specifications."
> > ?
>
> Because the CMS FQDN touches a lot more "interfaces" and multiple specifications:
> 	- establishment of the IPsec security association between MTA and CMS,
> 	- establishment of NCS session at the signaling level
> 	- etc.

OK -- that "complexity" argument was missing from the original proposal. 
I'm fine with that, then.


+Thomas

--
Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de)

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
IPCDN at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn