Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08 required

From: Flemisch Felix <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:04:48 +0100

Bob Ray made the proposal to do the update of the VDSL MIB only after agreeing to proceed to RFC status IN ADVANCE.  This is inacceptable.  Bob, please prepare draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.txt asap, possibly Rajesh Abbi can support you.

Already the agreed updates to draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-07 due to the required alignment with TR-057 are so voluminous that we urgently need draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.txt to have a solid basis from where we can go to RFC.  Moreover, there are a couple of yet unresolved comments by Moti and me that need clarification.  If they cannot be clarified in advance they will come up again as review comments for draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.

The summary given by Bob Ray on 26 March should be extended to include the following:

1. Moti's request (2 March [msg00178.html], 27 March [msg00187.html])
   regarding vdslChanOverhead and vdslChanBurstProtection
   (see also my comment of 13 March [msg00183.html])

Moti, please clarify the open issues raised by me and recently by Rajesh [msg00188.html].

2. general alignment with RFC 2662 (and RFC 3440, if applicable)
   (see my comments of 13 March [msg00183.html])

3. use values of adslLineType for vdslLineType

4. clarify that configured line rate = max fast chn rate 
   + max slow chn rate (and not the min values)

5. replace vdslLineConfU0Usage by vdslLineConfOptUsage
   (also in the DESCRIPTION)

6. resolve my comment on HAM bands

Best regards,

Felix Flemisch
--------------------------------------
SIEMENS AG
Information and Communication Networks
Carrier Products Systems Engineering
Hofmannstr. 51
D-81359 Munich
Tel    +49 89 722 62175
e-Mail [email-masked] 
--------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

---

From: "Michael Sneed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:42:26 -0500

Bob is just trying to determine the content of -08.  This discussion is 
perfectly appropriate, and I don't see a need for a new draft if there is 
still significant controversy as to its proper content.   If we can't agree 
to that content on the list, then putting the wrong content into a draft is 
not productive.

Please note that agreeing to his proposed content on the list does not 
prevent one from commenting on the draft after he has produced it or result 
in automatic progression of that draft to RFC.  The goal is simply to be as 
near to consensus as possible when he produces the draft.  The draft will 
not go to RFC, or even be sent to IETF Last Call, until the working group, 
via the list, achieves consensus.

>From: Flemisch Felix <[email-masked]>
>To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>CC: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]'" 
><[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]'" 
><[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]'" 
><[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]'" 
><[email-masked]>,   Boll Norbert <[email-masked]>,   
>Forster Josef <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08 required
>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:04:48 +0100
>
>Bob Ray made the proposal to do the update of the VDSL MIB only after 
>agreeing to proceed to RFC status IN ADVANCE.  This is inacceptable.  Bob, 
>please prepare draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.txt asap, possibly Rajesh Abbi 
>can support you.
>
>Already the agreed updates to draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-07 due to the 
>required alignment with TR-057 are so voluminous that we urgently need 
>draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.txt to have a solid basis from where we can go 
>to RFC.  Moreover, there are a couple of yet unresolved comments by Moti 
>and me that need clarification.  If they cannot be clarified in advance 
>they will come up again as review comments for draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-08.
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail