Phase 2 Comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-adsl2-01.txt

Hi,

I sent this out last night, but it bounced. Hope it works this time.

Here is another round of comments on the ID. As I continue to look
deeper, I may generate more.

One of the things I really love about this module is the use of the
reference clause. It really goes a long way to eliminate confusion.
Mostly in this phase of review I looked at references.

- Would it be possible to add a reference to all the TCs?

- Where references are used, is it possible to add the title of the
paragraph for both the ITU and the DSL Forum documents?

For example on adsl2LineCmndConfPmsf, "ITU-T G.9971., Paragraph
7..3.1.1.3, `Power management state forced (PMSF)'"

- G.997.1, May 2003, exists as a Normative Reference. Shouldn't
G.997.1, Amendment 1, December 2003, also be listed?

- The DSL Forum TR-90, May 2004 is referenced, but the latest on
the DSL Forum is December 2004.

- Some descriptions have ATU-C and ATU-R while some have ATU?C and
ATU?R. For example, adsl2LineStatusActAtpdDs.

- Some references have a space after the beginning quote. Not sure
if that was desired.

- Data rates through out top out at 50,000,000 bps. Having seen us
get burned on the SHDSL MIB module, I would hate to see is have the
same potential issue here. What if this is reused in some way for
VDSL2? It seems like 0..4294967295 would prevent any potential future
issue.

- adsl2LineCmndConfLdsf references G.997.1 paragraph 7.3.1.8.3
which I couldn't find. Should this be 7.3.1.1.8?

- adsl2LineCmndAutomodeColdStart references paragraph 7.3.1.1.10
which is in Amendment 1. Not sure if that should be noted.

- adsl2LineStatusSigAttenUs references G.997.1 paragraph 7.5.1.7.
Should this be 7.5.1.9?

- adsl2LineStatusAttainableRateDs references G.997.1 paragraph
7.5.1. Should this be 7.5.1.12?

- Some descriptions are indented differently. First noticed in the
adsl2ScalarSC group with other following.

- Several references don't take you to a specific section for the
object in the ITU document. It seems like the specific section should
be referenced to remove any ambiguity. For example on
adsl2SCStatusMtime, the reference could be:

REFERENCE "ITU-T G.997.1, paragraph 7.5.1.20.1, `Downstream SNR
Measurement Time (SNRMTds)'

ITU-T G.997.1, paragraph 7.5.1.20.3, `Upstream
SNR Measurement Time (SNRMTus)'"

- adsl2LConfTempChan2RaRatioDs seems to be missing a "R" as the
first character in the description text.

- Most objects are in the sequence as Ds followed by Us. In the
adsl2LConfProfTable,adsl2LConfProfMsgMin lists Us followed by Ds. Not
that it hurts anything, it was just unexpected.

- When object have a syntax of come TC, I would consider not
listing the values in the object's description. Keep that information
over at the TC. I suppose this would only be important if the TCs get
put in a separate ID.

- adsl2LConfProfL2Atpr and adsl2LConfProfL2Atprt have the same
description. I think adsl2LConfProfL2Atprt should be 7.3.1.1.9 in
G.997.1, Amendment 1.

- FecSeconds have "Seconds" spelled out, while the others have just
"s". Not sure that's what is desired.

- What does the "r" represent in adsl2PMrLineCurrInitTable and
adsl2PMrLineCurrInitEntry? It almost seems out of place.

- The description for adsl2PMLHist15MValidInterval asks a
question. Seems like it ought to make an authoritative statement like,
"Indicate whether or not the interval contains valid information."
Ditto on other ValidInterval objects.

- The lower case "f" in adsl2PMLCurrInit15MfullInits and
adsl2PMLCurrInit15MfailedFullInits caught my attention when compared to
ShortInits and FailedShortInits.

- The comment "MP line init history 15 Minutes doesn't have a
pretty "---" box around it like the others.

- I didn't see any mention of RFC 3440, in the ID. Seems like its
relationship to the NGDSL-LINE MIB ought to be discussed.

- There are objects for ATM Data Path Failure objects, but none for
ATM Data Path performance monitoring from G.997.1 paragraph 7.2.4.1.2.
Is that what is desired?

- I didn't see an object in the MIB for G.997.1, paragraph
7.3.1.1.2. Perhaps the intent is to use ifAdminStatus. I haven't
looked at the discussion text to see if this is discussed.

- I didn't see any objects in the MIB for G.997.1, paragraph
7.5.1.21.5 and 7.5.1.21.6. Not sure if they are needed or discussed.

Please forgive the nits. I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Clay

-- Paradyne Mail --

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib