Subject: RE: 53rd AToMIB agenda items

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:51:54 +0200

> 
> My sense is that we will probably not need a joint 
> hubmib/atommib session
> to discuss issues with the WIS MIB (although that could change if
> controversy arises in WG last call).  
> 

I would actually suggest that we ask for a meeting slot, and if it
proves that we do not need it, cancel the meeting prior tot he
Minneapolis meeting. This is much easier than realizing that we need a
meeting after the deadline expired.

Regards,

Dan

---

From: "Faye Ly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:56:09 -0800

Mike,

The reports I received from Cisco and Nortel don't
support SonetVTStuff2, SonetFarEndVTStuff2 and
sonetVTCurrentWidth.  Sorry I missed a lot of the
conversation but would love to hold the implementation
report pending 2558bis updates.

-faye

>From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
>To: AToMMIB Mailing List <[email-masked]>
>CC: Hubmib Mailing List <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: 53rd AToMIB agenda items
>Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:54:00 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Nathan Kohn wrote:
> > it may be seem early,  but then again anything before the last minute
> > usually is.
> >
> > the 53rd is in Minneapolis, MN, Mar 17-22, 2002.
> >
> > for mtg details: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-53.html
> >
> > i'll be happy to collect agenda items as they occur to you,
> > i.e. sooner rather than ...
> >
> > we will probably have two sessions again, one for just AToMMIB (one 
>hour),
> > and another jointly with hubmib (one hour).
>
>If we stick by our schedule we expect to have the WIS MIB in WG last call
>before the Minneapolis meeting.  My understanding from Dan Romascanu was
>that the IEEE was by and large satisfied with our draft (and the proposed
>resolutions of the four issues posted earlier).  There may be some changes
>to the IEEE managed objects that we will need to fold in to the object
>mapping section of the document, depending on how Lucent's comments got
>resolved, but it should take long to fold in whatever changes are necessary
>once the next 802.3ae draft shows up (this will be before the Feb 13-14
>802.3ae interim meeting). I don't anticipate anything controversial coming
>out of this.
>
>My sense is that we will probably not need a joint hubmib/atommib session
>controversy arises in WG last call).  However ...
>
>... the WIS MIB does need for the updated SONET-MIB (2558bis) to
>be published concurrently.  We have received three implementation
>reports on the list, but only one (Marconi's) claims support for
>sonetVTStuff2 and sonetFarEndVTStuff2.  We need a second implementation
>of those conformance groups in order to advance to draft.
>
>If the second report for sonetVTStuff2 and sonetFarEndVTStuff2 is not
>forthcoming by the time the WIS MIB has passed WG last call then my
>inclination would be to request that the SONET-MIB be recycled at
>proposed with the changes now in the 2558bis draft, with advancement
>to be requested when the reports are in hand.
>
>So, I'd like to propose a tentative agenda item (probably just for the
>main AToMMIB meeting) to discuss the implementation reports for the
>SONET-MIB and what to do about publication.  Hopefully Faye will have
>received more reports by then.
>
>Note that if we are able to advance 2558bis we will need to advance
>RFC 2493 at the same time.  It does not need any technical changes
>but might need to get the boilerplate properly updated as it does not
>reference the latest RFCs.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx