Re: coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.adslmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF06E4346B.C864C9A8-ON86256E76.00519CB9-86256E76.00524239@verilink.com> |
All, I am also in favor of removing the rate limitation for flexibility. I do think an update of the rate description as noted earlier will be helpful. -Lee |---------+---------------------------> | | Rajesh Abbi | | | <Rajesh.Abbi@alc| | | atel.com> | | | Sent by: | | | [email protected]| | | el.com | | | | | | | | | 04/14/04 09:45 | | | AM | | | | |---------+---------------------------> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: [email protected] | | cc: Clay Sikes <[email protected]>, [email protected], IETF ADSL MIB List <[email protected]> | | Subject: Re: [Adslmib] coments on draft G.SHDSL.BIS MIB | >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| If the only issue to address is the rate limitation, then I support Bob's suggestion to get rid of the rate ranges and leave it flexible for future rate enhancements. -Rajesh Bob Ray wrote: > Maybe we need to reevaluate the option of refreshing > RFC3276 instead of having a g.shdsl.bis draft... > > One thing we might try to do is to get rid of the range > on the line speed objects, and perhaps open up the wire > pair... > > Thoughts? > > -- > Bob Ray <[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Adslmib mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib