Subject: [ipcdn] RE: rf mib draft v5 - comment period end Friday Oct 25

From: Minnie Lu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:52:21 -0800

Hi, Raftus,

Thanks a lot for fixing the conflicts.
By the way, before v5 is accepted by CableLabs, I think that we need an ECR 
for v4 for OSSI spec..

Thanks!
Minnie

At 06:36 AM 10/28/2002 -0800, Raftus, David wrote:
>Hi Minnie,
>
>Thanks for your suggestion. I don't have an issue with increasing the upper
>range of this object from 1522 to 65535. The limit of 1522 was chosen when
>the object was created since it seemed to be an accurate value that would
>not require change. This has proven to be short-sighted.
>
>Thanks,
>Raftus (:))
>
>
>************************************
>David Raftus
>Imedia Semiconductor
>340 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 202
>Ottawa Canada  K2K 3A2
>
>[email-masked]
>613.592.1052  ext 222
>************************************
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Minnie Lu [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:04 PM
>To: Raftus, David
>Cc: Docsis 20 Reflector (E-mail); Docsis Oss Reflector (E-mail); Ipcdn List
>(E-mail); [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: rf mib draft v5 - comment period end Friday Oct 25
>
>Hi, Raftus,
>
>     There is conflict between RFI spec. and the following MIB object range
>
>   docsIfQosProfMaxTransmitBurst OBJECT-TYPE
>          SYNTAX      Integer32 (0..1522)  <===========
>          MAX-ACCESS  read-create
>          STATUS      current
>          DESCRIPTION
>              "The maximum number of bytes that may be requested for a
>               single upstream transmission. A value of zero means there
>               is no limit. Note: This value does not include any
>               physical layer overhead.
>               MUST NOT be changed while this row is active."
>          REFERENCE
>              "Document [25] from References, Appendix C.1.1.4."
>          DEFVAL { 0 }
>          ::= { docsIfQosProfileEntry 9 }
>
>In RFIv1.1 (C1.1.4.6) and RFIv2.0 (C1.1.4.6), it defined 2 bytes and does
>not have upper limit to 1522.    This conflict exists in v4 version which
>is in use by OSSI spec. (1.1, and 2.0).
>
>   Any reason for MIB to have such upper limit ? If not, would you please
>correct this error in the MIB file ?
>
>
>
>Thanks a lot !
>Minnie
>
>
>At 12:55 PM 10/18/2002 -0700, Raftus, David wrote:
>
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> >Please find attached a draft of the Docsis RF Interface mib v5. The TOC
> >and compliance statements have not been updated, but suggestions received
> >since v4 regarding new mib objects have been incorporated after
> >appropriate massaging.
> >
> >
> >
> >Comments are welcome on this draft until 5pm EST Friday October 25. At
> >that time an official version of the draft will be prepared for submission
> >to the IETF last call process, leading to RFC designation.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks very much,
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >************************************
> >
> >David Raftus
> >
> >Imedia Semiconductor
> >
> >340 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 202
> >
> >Ottawa Canada
> >
> >[email-masked]************************************
> >58147a.jpg581498.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> >

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