Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft updates

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:35:24 +0200

Inline.... sorry I took a while to re-check.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Ray [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: maandag 8 september 2003 18:30
> To: adslmib mail list
> Subject: [Adslmib] draft updates
> 
> 
> All:
> 
> Per input from Bert Wijnen and Randy Presuhn (and belatedly, Felix
> Flemisch), I updated the vdsl and hc-tc drafts (producing -11 and -05
> respectively).
> 
> Here is a list of changes done:
> 
> 1.  Fixed the problems noted by Felix in his email of June 17, 2003.
> 2.  Added "MUST, SHOULD, MAY" sentence to both drafts.
> 3.  Changed "counter are" to "counters are", page 8.
> 4.  Changed reference to RFC2575 to RFC2415, page 10.

you mean 3415, but the doc is correct now

> 5.  Changed RFC editor note to use Bert's suggestion that we use
>     "transmission 97".
> 6.  Added persistence statement to tables that should be treated
>     as persistent.
> 7.  Changed names of objects in vdslPhysTable to have a consistent
>     prefix of vdslPhys.
> 8.  Changed names of objects in vdslPerfDataTable to have a consistent
>     prefix of vdslPerfData.
> 9.  Changed names of objects in vdslPerfIntervalTable to have a
>     consistent prefix of vdslPerfInterval.

Sofar so good. What a pitty that you did not also change the
descriptors for vdslLineAlarmConfProfileTable to be more
consistent in their prefix (I guess I should have pointed that
one out specifically as well?). They now are:

  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20       vdslLineAlarmConfProfileTablex
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1     vdslLineAlarmConfProfileEntry x
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.1   vdslLineAlarmConfProfileName 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.2   vdslThresh15MinLofs 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.3   vdslThresh15MinLoss 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.4   vdslThresh15MinLprs 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.5   vdslThresh15MinLols 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.6   vdslThresh15MinESs  
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.7   vdslThresh15MinSESs 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.8   vdslThresh15MinUASs
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.9   vdslInitFailureNotifyEnable 
  1.3.6.1.2.1.10.97.1.1.20.1.10  vdslLineAlarmConfProfRowStatus

I can live with it... but possibly you may still want to improve this
somehwat after we finish IETF Last Call. 

> 10. Changed "portion of the" to "", page 1
> 11. Changed "its" to "their", page 7
> 12. Changed "SHOULD" to "should", page 10
> 13. Fixed indentation in bibliographic section
> 14. Updated security boilerplate per 
>       www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html
>       (I hope!) in vdsl mib.
> 15. Replaced security section with Bert's text in hc-tc mib.

I also believe that the ref to RFC2493 should be updated to RFC3593.
Can do that after IETF last call (via RFC-Editor note if no other
changes are needed)

And there are now new RFCs for RFC2558 (RFC3592)

Bob, I also had a number of questions in my AD review posting.
You made no changes for some of the questions raised. 
That is OK, after all they were just questions. 
Would still appreaciate an answer (to the list) though.

And this question MUST be answered and the doc fixed:
- The xxxRowStatus objects do not specify if any (or all, or none)
  of the columnar objects in a column can be changed/modified if
  the RowStatus value is 'active'. So as an implementer or as an
  NM APP developer, how would I know?

Can do so after IETF Last Call.

I have requested IETF Last Call now. Should show up soon.

I expect a new rev for the vdsl mib to address some of the above
Certainly the rowstatus issue.

Bert
-- 
Bob Ray <[email-masked]>

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

---

From: Bob Ray <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Sep 2003 08:50:39 -0500

> Certainly the rowstatus issue.

Ok.  I've been stretched a little thin lately, but will get it
done this week.

-- 
Bob Ray <[email-masked]>