Re: How to specify InetAddressType COMPLIANCE requirements

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

Howdy,

I thought the folks on this list might be interested in seeing how
the discussion of this issue with the IPCDN folks got resolved.  It
turns out that the underlying protocols relevant to the IPCDN MIBs
(DOCSIS 1.0/1.1/2.0) don't yet support IPv6.  In light of that it
seems reasonable to only require IPv4 support in the compliance
statements, as long as the MIB module itself is IPv6-ready.

//cmh

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 13:31:56 +0200 
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Cc: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>,
     Wilson Sawyer <Wilson.Sawyer@arrisi.com>,
     Richard Woundy <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>,
     Jean-Francois Mule <jf.mule@CableLabs.com>
Subject: RE: FW: subscriber management MIB: RFC3289 compliance statements

Great. I think indeed the most important point is that the
MIB itself indeed is IPv4 and IPv6 capabale (in fact I think
even other types of InternetAddress could be added to the
list if that made sense, but it does not for this doc
I think). And as long as we make that very clear in the document,
then I think we are OK. And it DOES then also align with the
"take IPv6 into considerations".

I think Mike gave some good suggestion for explanatory text 
at various places in the document.

Thanks Mike and Thank Eduardo for follow up.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: zaterdag 2 augustus 2003 20:01
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Eduardo Cardona; Wilson Sawyer; Richard Woundy; Jean-Francois Mule
> Subject: Re: FW: subscriber management MIB: RFC3289 compliance
> statements
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Comment?
> ...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eduardo Cardona [mailto:e.cardona@CableLabs.com]
> > Sent: zaterdag 2 augustus 2003 0:35
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Jean-Francois Mule; 
> Wilson.Sawyer@arrisi.com;
> > Richard Woundy (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: subscriber management MIB: RFC3289 compliance 
> statements
> ...
> > The text sounds interesting, 
> > What I see in the text
> > "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and/or IPv6
> > addresses."
> > 
> > An implementer could do: 
> > 
> > IPv4 only
> > IPv6 only
> > IPv4 and IPv6
> > Logically "IPv4 OR IPv6"
> > 
> > What currently the DOCSIS spec require and is capable is: 
> > 
> > Ipv4 only: - does not provide IPv6 restriction but the DOCSIS
> > protocols and provisioning does not support IPv6
> > IPv6 only: is definitely not in the possible current
> > circumnstances
> > IPv4 and IPv6: not yet as explained above
> > 
> > I do not think the text is robust enough at this point but is a
> > very good attempt. Unfortunatelly I do not see ways to force
> > that better without going to the area you are trying to avoid .
> > -Ipv4 restrictions-
> 
> Given that the underlying DOCSIS protocols support only IPv4 --
> which is something that I did not know when I commented before -- I
> think it is entirely reasonable that the compliance statements in
> the MIB module (as opposed to the underlying MIB objects) would not
> require support for anything other than IPv4.  This is not the same
> situation as with the MPLS MIBs, where the underlying protocols do
> support IPv6.  So after reflection I think that Eduardo's objection
> to our suggestion to adopt the MPLS compliance text is well-founded.
> Now, _if_ the DOCSIS protocols already supported IPv6 then it would,
> I think, be necessary for the compliance statements to mandate such
> support ... but since that hasn't happened yet, I see no reason to
> do so.
> 
> > Sometime ago you suggested place the ipv4 restrictions and have
> > at ipv6 ready time a set of RFCs with an update of Compliance
> > Statements. Will that still work ?
> 
> I think that is a good idea.  Whether you deprecate the existing
> IPv4-only compliance statement and replace it with one for
> IPv4+IPv6, or keep it and add a separate one for IPv6, is a decision
> that can be made at the time you do the MIB update.
> 
> > An attempt could be keeping the IPv4 restrictions and add to the
> > DESCRIPTION of the MODULE-COMPLIANCE a note explaining : "DOCSIS
> > 1.0/1.1/2.0 are not IPv6 capable. Support of IPv6 will require
> > changes in DOCSIS protocols, not signigficant changes in this
> > MIB without considering new MIB features. It is expected to
> > publish new RFCs to update the COMPLIANCE-MODULE of this MIB
> > when IPv6 support will be required for DOCSIS compliant
> > devices."
> 
> I think that this is a very reasonable suggestion, although I would
> recommend some wordsmithing/reshuffling to improve the English and
> minimize future changes to the MIB module.  Specifically, I would
> suggest that the following statement (and nothing else) be added at
> the end of the existing compliance statement DESCRIPTION clause:
> 
>   "This compliance statement applies to implementations that
>    support DOCSIS 1.0/1.1/2.0, which are not IPv6-capable."
> 
> Note that this would not require any rewording if you decide to keep
> this compliance statement and later add one for IPv6.
> 
> Maybe you also would like to do this in the REVISION/DESCRIPTION
> pair in the MODULE-IDENTITY invocation:
> 
>        REVISION "200305280000Z" -- May 28, 2003
>        DESCRIPTION
>           "Initial version, published as RFC xxxx.
>            Note that the compliance statements in
>            this version apply only to implementations
>            that support DOCSIS 1.0/1.1/2.0, which
>            are not IPv6-capable."
>           -- RFC editor to assign xxxx
> 
> Again, no changes needed to these clauses when a new version shows
> up (you'll be adding a new REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair to describe the
> updates).
> 
> But definitely somewhere in the text (not in the MIB module) I think
> you should say something like this:
> 
>    Please note that the compliance statements in this version of
>    the MIB module require support only for IPv4 addresses.  That
>    is because they current version of the DOCSIS protocols
>    (1.0, 1.1, and 2.0) are not IPv6-capable.  Although support
>    for IPv6 will require changes to the DOCSIS protocols, it is
>    expected that the only changes needed to the MIB module itself
>    will be the addition of new compliance statements that mandate
>    support for IPv6 addresses.
> 
> I would suggest that this text belongs somewhere early in Section 2.
> It, of course, would have to be replaced in the new RFC.
> 
> The key thing here is that the MIB module is IPv6-ready as is:  you
> won't need to do wholesale deprecation/addition of new objects when
> IPv6 support comes along, and an implementor could go to work
> adding IPv6 support as soon as the DOCSIS protocols that support it
> come out (even before the new compliance statements are written).
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Mike
>