Subject: Re: SONET-MIB questions

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:37:08 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Orly Nicklass wrote:
> I assume we are in a process of moving the two to draft standard, so at this
> point we probably do not want to discuss additions to the RFCs. However
> there are two issues that came up recently at my company and it might be
> worth a brief discussion or simple answer from the list.
> 
> In RFC 2558, (1) in the configuration section  of this MIB,  is there any
> reason why we do not include transmit clock as we do in DS1 or DS3?

Probably because no one requested it, either during the initial MIB
development that led to RFC 1595 or during the revisions that lead
from RFC 1595 to RFC 2558.

I was not a WG participant when the I-Ds leading to RFC 1595 were
discussed, but I have searched the AToMMIB mail archives all the way back
to April 1993 (see ftp://thumper.bellcore.com/pub/Group.archive/atommib)
and found no discussion of managed objects to select (or even to report)
the transmit clock source configuration.

> 	        (2) in the same section, was the option of limiting the
> loopback on timing ever being discussed in the past?

Not that I can recall, and I don't find anything in the archives,
either.

> Knowing you as one who recall history, if there are answers to those from
> past discussions I will be happy to get those, if not, you my forward it to
> the list for comment.

I'll cc: this reply to the list and see if anyone has anything to
add to what I've just said.

Regards,

Mike