RE: RFC3276 respin

On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 06:34, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> Formally, I do not think that you can remove the range limits.
> See RFC2578, sect 10.

Adding additional enumerations to Hdsl2ShdslWirePair and
hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface are certainly allowed by 2578,
section 10.2 note (1), so that is straight forward.

> I think I could go along with the change if we were to update the
> current MODULE-COMPLIANCE such that the current ranges are inlcuded
> there, and then do a new MODULE-COMPLIANCE that allows for the new
> values, certainly for the read-write objects. 
> 
> Similar fixes to MODULE-COMPLIANCE would be recommend for the enumerated
> objects.

I'm trying to understand - please bear with me.

So, one would leave the original object declaration alone, such as:

hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      Unsigned32(0..4112000)
   blah blah blah

but add entries in the compliance section of the form:

OBJECT      hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate
            SYNTAX   Unsigned32(0..92520000)
            DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

Is this right?  If so, I guess similar entries would be required for 
	hdsl2ShdslStatusActualLineRate,
	hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMinLineRate, and 
	hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMaxLineRate.

For hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface, then, would the following be
the right syntax (in the compliance section)?

OBJECT      hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface
            SYNTAX      INTEGER
            {
               twoWire(1),
               fourWire(2),
               sixWire(3),
               eightWire(4)
            }
            DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

If the above is correct, then, the only one left is the textual
convention Hdsl2ShdslWirePair.  How does one extend a textual convention
in the compliance section?  I don't think I've ever seen this done.

Does one add an entry stating:

TEXTUAL-CONVENTION Hdsl2ShdslWirePair
           SYNTAX    INTEGER
           {
           wirePair1(1),
           wirePair2(2),
           wirePair3(3),
           wirePair4(4)
           }
           DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

Looks odd, I guess, but I don't know the way :)

Process questions

a) Were some industrious person to submit a "respin of 3276" with the above
changes, would they submit a new draft to the ietf draft editor as an
individual contribution or striaght away to the adslmib working group?

b) Would this draft contain the full text of RFC3276 in draft form (vs
RFC form) along with the above modifications?

c) Would it be permissible to submit a draft noting the changes necessary
to support g.shdsl.bis?  That is, essentially a draft with all of the
above changes discussed textually ala RFC3593?

Bob