I suggest:
"Jun 2006 Integrate working group changes and produce revised VDSL2
draft2" =>
"Jun 2006 Integrate working group changes and produce revised VDSL2
MIB draft2"
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Adslmib Digest, Vol 20, 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: Recharter for VDSL2 ([email protected])
2. RE: Recharter for VDSL2 (Umberto Bonollo)
3. RE: RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3 (Wijnen, Bert (Bert))
4. RE: Re: Recharter for VDSL2 (Wijnen, Bert (Bert))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:35:34 +0200
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Adslmib] Re: Recharter for VDSL2
To: [email protected]
Message-ID:
<OF75A1FD66.DFD134D2-ON422570D6.007BD075-C22570D6.007BF49C@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Hi Everyone,
Thanks Umberto and Bob for your inputs.
Please comment on the proposed charter, below, for the work on
VDSL2.
=================================================================
The working group will define a set of managed objects to be used for
management of newer versions of Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) as
defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.997.1 (02/2006).
The MIB defined by this group will be generated using SMIv2, will be
consistent with the SNMP management framework, and will describe the
relationship of the objects defined to existing MIBs such as those
described in other work products of this Working Group, the interfaces
MIB, and the AToM MIB.
The working group will consider the input of the DSL forum and the ITU
in the definition of this MIB.
Feb 2006 Initial WG Internet-Draft covering VDSL2 management objects
Jun 2006 Integrate working group changes and produce revised VDSL2
draft
Sep 2006 Complete WG last call on VDSL2 MIB
Nov 2006 Submit VDSL2 MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed
Standard
Dec 2006 Re-charter or close down
========================================================================
=============
Thank you kindly.
Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:32:44 +1100
From: "Umberto Bonollo" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Adslmib] RE: Recharter for VDSL2
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Baillie <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <008b01c6003d$853c89a0$84304c93@miracle>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Menachem, thanks for
drawing this up.
Charter below looks fine to us.
Umberto Bonollo &
Scott Baillie
NEC Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 9:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Recharter for VDSL2
Hi Everyone,
Thanks Umberto and Bob for your inputs.
Please comment on the proposed charter, below, for the work on
VDSL2.
=================================================================
The working group will define a set of managed objects to be used for
management of newer versions of Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) as
defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.997.1 (02/2006).
The MIB defined by this group will be generated using SMIv2, will be
consistent with the SNMP management framework, and will describe the
relationship of the objects defined to existing MIBs such as those
described in other work products of this Working Group, the interfaces
MIB, and the AToM MIB.
The working group will consider the input of the DSL forum and the ITU
in the definition of this MIB.
Feb 2006 Initial WG Internet-Draft covering VDSL2 management objects
Jun 2006 Integrate working group changes and produce revised VDSL2
draft
Sep 2006 Complete WG last call on VDSL2 MIB
Nov 2006 Submit VDSL2 MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed
Standard
Dec 2006 Re-charter or close down
========================================================================
====
=========
Thank you kindly.
Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:13 +0100
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: Adslmib Digest, Vol 19, Issue 3
To: Miguel Peeters <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Message-ID:
<7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15508DA0D41@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
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
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:13 +0100
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Re: Recharter for VDSL2
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Message-ID:
<7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15508DA0D42@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mmmm.....
I read (in the proposed charter) about ITU-T and DSL-FORUM.
So I went to:
http://www.dslforum.org/aboutdsl/vdsl_tutorial.html
And there, it never talks about ITU-T but about 5 other stds bodies.
So what is up? Or is that DSL-Forum page too old (it has a 2001 date at
the bottom).
I would (at least once) expand on the term VDSL I think.
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 23:36
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Adslmib] Re: Recharter for VDSL2
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Thanks Umberto and Bob for your inputs.
>
> Please comment on the proposed charter, below, for the work on
> VDSL2.
>
> =================================================================
>
>
> The working group will define a set of managed objects to be used for
> management of newer versions of Digital Subscriber Line
> (xDSL) as defined
> in ITU-T Recommendation G.997.1 (02/2006).
> The MIB defined by this group will be generated using SMIv2, will be
> consistent with the SNMP management framework, and will describe the
> relationship of the objects defined to existing MIBs such as those
> described in other work products of this Working Group, the interfaces
> MIB, and the AToM MIB.
>
> The working group will consider the input of the DSL forum and the ITU
> in the definition of this MIB.
>
> Feb 2006 Initial WG Internet-Draft covering VDSL2 management objects
> Jun 2006 Integrate working group changes and produce revised VDSL2
> draft
> Sep 2006 Complete WG last call on VDSL2 MIB
> Nov 2006 Submit VDSL2 MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed
> Standard
> Dec 2006 Re-charter or close down
>
> ==============================================================
> =======================
>
>
> Thank you kindly.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Menachem Dodge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
End of Adslmib Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3
**************************************
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.