Subject: [Adslmib] FW: Re: VDSL Line Extension MIB - Modified

From: Flemisch Felix <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:37:05 +0200

I'm resending this e-mail because I'm not sure whether
it reached IETF's mail server.

-----Original Message-----
From: Flemisch Felix 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:20 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: VDSL Line Extension MIB - Modified
Importance: High

As a comment to my e-mail of 09 Jun 2003 03:33:53 +0200 (msg00263)
Bob Ray wrote on 09 Jun 2003 09:15:55 -0500 (msg00265)

> This insistence that the hands of the IETF be bound by specific 
> references to work that hasn't been chartered and by work that 
> hasn't been done is not productive.
> ...
> I believe this approach would be FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE...

In my e-mail entitled "VDSL Line Extension MIB - Modified" I'm
proposing four very concrete text fragments how to improve the
current text of vdsl-09 (or vdsl-09a) regarding the structure
of line configuration profile tables.  That structure needs to
include the agreed core table of vdsl-09a and a set of LCS tables.
From the overall discussion in the WG I conclude that my point
of view is widely adopted.  But for some foggy reason this common
understanding shall not be documented in the core VDSL MIB.  The
most productive way to proceed would be to provide corrections
to my proposed text fragments that incorporate the positions of
the WG members that do not agree with my wordings.

Mike Sneed wrote on 09 Jun 2003 14:15:19 -0400 (msg00270)

> 3) There are three possible ways to proceed from here (as I see it):
> i)   Promote the current VDSL MIB and recharter to do the LCS MIB
>      when it can be done consistent with the DSLF.
> ii)  Hold the VDSL MIB until we can do LCS configuration
>      consistent with the DSLF.
> iii) Promote the VDSL MIB and drop LCS altogether for the time being.
> iv)  Revert to the scheme of LCS management in -07 and promote that.
...
> 4) There is still debate over whether to refer to LCS MIBs if we
>    pursue option i) or iii).  ...
...

I recommend 3)i) and request that we do the LCS MIB in close
cooperation with the DSLF so that "when it can be done consistent
with the DSLF" is completely out of the question.  Since the DSLF
OpNM WG seems to be fully aware of the current state of art I can't
see any problem there.  Regarding 4) I recommend at the same time
to refer to LCS MIBs from the core MIB (sic!) either according to
my proposals (see my e-mail cited above) or according to any agreed
modifications of these proposals submitted by somebody else.

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

---

From: Bob Ray <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2003 08:21:31 -0500

> it reached IETF's mail server.

I got it.

Bob Ray