RE: RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:13 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.adslmib
Message-ID	<7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15508DA0D41@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
MMm....
I see that that document:
- speaks about SNMP as if RFC1157 (old and now HISTORIC SNMPv1)
  is the SNMP protocol. It better spoke about some more recent
  versions of SNMP, no?
- Section 6 is also pretty old SNMPv1 like.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Miguel Peeters
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:33
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> 
> 
> Hi Menachem,
> 
> There is a working text available, MG-R19.zip, on the following ITU-T
> FTP web site:
> 
> http://ties.itu.int/u/tsg15/sg15/xchange/wp1/q4/Meetings/2005-
> 12-Munich/00_doc_list.html
> 
> You must be an ITU-T member to access it.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Miguel
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:24 AM
> > To: Miguel Peeters
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> > 
> > Hi Miguel,
> > 
> >       Do you mean that the revision of G.997.1 to support 
> > VDSL2 will be completed in February 2006, in which case are 
> > there any early drafts available?
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Menachem Dodge
> > ECI Telecom Ltd.
> > Broadband Access Division
> > 
> > Tel:      +972-3-9268421
> > Mobile: +972-54-5788421
> > Fax:      +972-3-9287342
> > 
> > 
> >                                                               
> >              
> >              "Miguel Peeters"                                 
> >              
> >              <Miguel.Peeters@b                                
> >              
> >              roadcom.com>                                     
> >           To 
> >              Sent by:                  [email protected]       
> >              
> >              adslmib-bounces@i                                
> >           cc 
> >              etf.org                                          
> >              
> >                                                               
> >      Subject 
> >                                        RE: [Adslmib] RE: 
> > Adslmib Digest,   
> >              04/11/2005 11:04          Vol 19, Issue 3        
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> >                                                               
> >              
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > For those interested, ITU-T SG15/Q4 has decided to consent a 
> > revision of
> > G.997.1 to support VDSL2 in February 2006.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Miguel Peeters
> > Broadcom / Editor G.997.1
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> > [email protected]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:57 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: [Adslmib] RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> > >
> > > Infineon also has a strong interest in working on the 
> > development of a 
> > > MIB for VDSL2. We are prepared to contribute towards this by 
> > > reviewing, comments or co-authorship, as appropriate.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Neal J. King
> > > Infineon Technologies
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> > > [email protected]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:46 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> > >
> > > Send Adslmib mailing list submissions to
> > >            [email protected]
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >            https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >            [email protected]
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >            [email protected]
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is 
> more specific 
> > > than
> > > "Re: Contents of Adslmib digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. Re: ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > >       ([email protected])
> > >    2. RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64 bit
> > >       counter when valid value is 0 .. 899 (Ray, Robert)
> > >    3. RE: ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones (Umberto 
> > > Bonollo)
> > >    4. Re: RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64
> > >       bitcounter when valid value is 0 .. 899 (Randy Presuhn)
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:21:23 +0200
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> > > Message-ID:
> > >
> > > <OF1E3ECBBC.EE101223-ONC22570AE.005D81A1-C22570AE.005F4BCE@eci
> > tele.com>
> > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > The IETF NG xDSL MIB we just developed can be relatively easily 
> > > modified in order to support VDSL2. Once there is enough 
> > consensus in 
> > > ITU-T regarding to the VDSL2 management model and the re-charter 
> > > process is completed, it will be possible to finalize that MIB.
> > >
> > > We have an interest in VDSL2 and are prepared to continue on as 
> > > co-authors.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > M. Morgenstern and M. Dodge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                       Robert Ray
> > >
> > >                       <RobertRay@pesa.         To:      "ADSL MIB
> > > (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
> > >                       com>                     cc:
> > >
> > >                       Sent by:                 Subject: 
> > [Adslmib] ADSL
> > > MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > >                       adslmib-bounces@
> > >
> > >                       ietf.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                       03/11/2005 16:10
> > >
> > >                       Please respond
> > >
> > >                       to RobertRay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > The last remaining item in our charter is:
> > >
> > > Dec 05  Re-charter or close down
> > >
> > > I know there has been some discussion about working on VDSL2.
> > >  If enough interest is shown (i.e. volunteers to author, comment, 
> > > review, etc.), perhaps we can move towards trying to get 
> > rechartered 
> > > to pursue this work.  If you want to go this route, I urge you to 
> > > speak up soon!
> > >
> > > If not, I suggest we "go dormant" (keep the mail list up but be 
> > > removed from the list of active working groups) until the 
> > current IDs 
> > > wend their way through the RFC editor queue and then shut down.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob Ray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Adslmib mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:24:21 -0600
> > > From: "Ray, Robert" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs 
> > etc - why 64
> > >            bit         counter when valid value is 0 .. 899
> > > To: "Ambiga Karthikeyan" <[email protected]>,
> > >            <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Message-ID:
> > >            
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > When writing that MIB, I didn't want to mix high-capacity textual 
> > > conventions with similar though 32-bit textual conventions from 
> > > RFC3593.
> > > That is, I'm a big fan of monophyly when writing software (and 
> > > specifications for same).  In terms of what is "on the 
> > wire", the high 
> > > capacity data types, when encoded in asn.1, require no more 
> > bits than 
> > > their 32-bit equivalents as the significant information is 
> > an integer 
> > > value in the range 0..899.
> > >
> > > >From a programmer's standpoint, you need not store 64 bits 
> > internally
> > > for your counters, simply encode them for transmission that 
> > way.  Hope 
> > > this helps.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob Ray
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Ambiga Karthikeyan [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:04 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Ray, Robert; [email protected]
> > > Subject: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc - why 64 
> > bit counter 
> > > when valid value is 0 .. 899
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear RFC3728 editors,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      I am working on implementing Vdsl MIBs and while 
> reviewing RFC 
> > > 3728, I found that the following mib variables in
> > >
> > > vdslPerfDataTable and vdslPerfIntervalTable  defined as 
> > > HCPerfCurrentCount which is 64 bit counter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLoss          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLprs          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLols          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinESs           HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinSESs          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinUASs          HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >            vdslPerfDataCurr15MinInits         HCPerfCurrentCount,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalLofs               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalLoss               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalLprs               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalLols               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalESs                HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalSESs               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalUASs               HCPerfIntervalCount,
> > >
> > >           vdslPerfIntervalInits              HCPerfIntervalCount
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is the definition of one of them:
> > >
> > >    vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs OBJECT-TYPE
> > >
> > >        SYNTAX       HCPerfCurrentCount
> > >
> > >        UNITS        "seconds"
> > >
> > >        MAX-ACCESS   read-only
> > >
> > >        STATUS       current
> > >
> > >        DESCRIPTION
> > >
> > >            "Count of seconds during this interval that there
> > >
> > >            was Loss of Framing."
> > >
> > >        REFERENCE    "T1E1.4/2000-009R3, Part 1, common spec"
> > >
> > >        ::= { vdslPerfDataEntry 12 }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From the description, it is the number of seconds in the 15 Min
> > > interval
> > > which had Loss of Frame event and so it can be from 0 to 
> > 899 only. So 
> > > why do we need 64 bit counter value here ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you very much,
> > >
> > > Ambiga
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was 
> > > scrubbed...
> > > URL:
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/adslmib/attachments/20051103/51
> > > 5e1522/att
> > > achment.htm
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:44:54 +1100
> > > From: "Umberto Bonollo" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Message-ID: <000c01c5e0d8$f9fb9760$84304c93@miracle>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;          charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Hi Bob, Menachem, Moti,
> > >
> > > We would be happy also to continue on as co-authors for the 
> > > forthcoming
> > > VDSL2
> > > as our interest is similar.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Umberto Bonollo & Scott Baillie
> > > NEC Australia
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> > > Behalf Of [email protected]
> > > Sent: Friday, 4 November 2005 4:21 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [Adslmib] ADSL MIB Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > The IETF NG xDSL MIB we just developed can be relatively easily 
> > > modified in order to support VDSL2. Once there is enough 
> > consensus in 
> > > ITU-T regarding to the VDSL2 management model and the re-charter 
> > > process is completed, it will be possible to finalize that MIB.
> > >
> > > We have an interest in VDSL2 and are prepared to continue on as 
> > > co-authors.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > M. Morgenstern and M. Dodge
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                       Robert Ray
> > >                       <RobertRay@pesa.         To:      "ADSL MIB
> > > (E-mail)"
> > > <[email protected]>
> > >                       com>                     cc:
> > >                       Sent by:                 Subject: 
> > [Adslmib] ADSL
> > > MIB
> > > Working Group Goals and Milestones
> > >                       adslmib-bounces@
> > >                       ietf.org
> > >
> > >
> > >                       03/11/2005 16:10
> > >                       Please respond
> > >                       to RobertRay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > The last remaining item in our charter is:
> > >
> > > Dec 05  Re-charter or close down
> > >
> > > I know there has been some discussion about working on VDSL2.
> > >  If enough interest is shown (i.e. volunteers to author, comment, 
> > > review, etc.), perhaps we can move towards trying to get 
> > rechartered 
> > > to pursue this work.  If you want to go this route, I urge you to 
> > > speak up soon!
> > >
> > > If not, I suggest we "go dormant" (keep the mail list up but be 
> > > removed from the list of active working groups) until the 
> > current IDs 
> > > wend their way through the RFC editor queue and then shut down.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 19:48:18 -0800
> > > From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: 
> vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs etc -
> > >            why 64            bitcounter when valid value 
> is 0 .. 899
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <003301c5e0f2$986b3f40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain;          charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > > From: "Ray, Robert" <[email protected]>
> > > > To: "Ambiga Karthikeyan" <[email protected]>;
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:24 AM
> > > > Subject: [Adslmib] RE: RFC3728: vdslPerfDataCurr15MinLofs
> > > etc - why 64
> > > bitcounter when valid value is 0 .. 899 ..
> > > > When writing that MIB, I didn't want to mix 
> high-capacity textual 
> > > > conventions with similar though 32-bit textual conventions from
> > > RFC3593.
> > > > That is, I'm a big fan of monophyly when writing software (and 
> > > > specifications for same).  In terms of what is "on the
> > > wire", the high
> > > > capacity data types, when encoded in asn.1, require no more
> > > bits than
> > > > their 32-bit equivalents as the significant information is
> > > an integer
> > > > value in the range 0..899.
> > > >
> > > > From a programmer's standpoint, you need not store 64 bits
> > > internally
> > > > for your counters, simply encode them for transmission that
> > > way.  Hope
> > > > this helps.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Though I have some sympathy for this argument, I'm not able 
> > to get the 
> > > MIB review guidelines to support it, no matter how hard I squint.
> > >
> > > Though the review guidelines relax the RFC 2578 "wrap in 
> > less than one 
> > > hour" limitation on the use of Counter64, RFC 4181 (page 
> > 16) permits 
> > > them when it "makes sense" to do so.  In this particular 
> case, the 
> > > semantics of the object strongly suggest that this 
> > shouldn't even be a 
> > > Counter type, much less Counter64.  Page 15 of RFC 4181 
> > suggests that 
> > > Unsigned32 would be the correct type in this case.
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Adslmib mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
> > > **************************************
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Adslmib mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Adslmib mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>