RE: ADSL2+ 02 draft

Hi Bert, Bob,

    I believe that this is a satisfactory solution. I will just confer with
the other editors.

    Best Regards,
    Menachem

----- Original Message -----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) <[email protected]>
To: Ray, Robert <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] ADSL2+ 02 draft


> Inline
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > Behalf Of Ray, Robert
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 17:04
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Adslmib] ADSL2+ 02 draft
> >
> >
> > All:
> >
> > A reminder and request:
> >
> > -02 has been posted.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-adslmib-adsl2-02.txt
> >
> > Please review this draft - we would like to proceed towards
> > WG last call if possible.
> >
> > I believe the authors have addressed all elements of the previous round.
> > The authors have decided to keep the TCs in the draft (versus breaking
> > them out into another document).
> >
> Sorry for not having reacted on this earlier.
> There is also the possibility to have a separate MIB module for TCs but
> have it specified within the same I-D (and later RFC).
> It does nicely separate out the TCs, keeps them close to the MIB module
> that is using them, and yet allows to separate it out in a different
> doc in the future if we ever need to.
>
> Bert
> > Regards,
> > Bob Ray
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Adslmib mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib