RE: A draft adsl2 line MIB
PHIL BERGSTRESSER <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.adslmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Clay et al, I agree with the sentiment for a separate TC MIB. Precedent was made early on to separate the IanaIfType MIB from the ifType of the IF-MIB for ease of maintenance and to allow a different organization to have ownership. Then the ATM working group broke out its TC so the standard became rfc2514/2515 for the TC and ATM MIBs. It can be named ADSL-TC without the suffix MIB too. More work to manage it, but useful. Phil Philip N. Bergstresser Design Engineer SNMP Network Management ADTRAN, Inc. Huntsville, AL 35806 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Clay Sikes Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:49 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Adslmib] A draft adsl2 line MIB Hi Moti and Menachem, Thank you for working a MIB for the next generation ADSL! Let us know when you are ready for comments; I think this version of the draft is meant to primarily spark a discussion at the IETF meeting. One thing that may warrant a discussion at the meeting is the placement of the TCs, especially the Adsl2TransmissionModeType. It may be a good idea to consider putting some or all the TCs into something like an ADSL-TC MIB module. The primary reason is that they may need to be adjusted over time. I would expect that it would be faster to turn a TC MIB module than an ADSL MIB module. For example, I would suspect that there may be new bits defined for the Adsl2TransmissionModeType as time goes on. Best Regards, Clay Sikes Paradyne Corp. -- Paradyne Mail -- _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib