RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

I was thinking of an external document in order to ensure coverage of
all those related modules of the 2 groups. Would not it be limited if we
have such in one of the module only, like this GBOND-MIB?Would not it be
just from the bonding aspects, or could we really cover the phy and
logical layer too without getting out of scope? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 05:10
To: Orly Nicklass; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern; [email protected];
Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Orly,
I think a relevant "relationship to *-MIB" section in GBOND-MIB would be
a good place to put such a clarification.
Alternatively we could add a new "solution applicability" section.

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 18:11
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern; [email protected]; 
> Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi; Edward Beili
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
>  Dan,
> 
> Since the HUBMIB and the ADSLMIB are sharing modules for various 
> solutions, would not it be a good idea to have a shared applicability 
> draft explaining how to handle the MIB modules of the two groups for 
> the various solutions?
> 
> Orly
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 17:04
> To: Uri Shabi; Menachem Dodge
> Cc: [email protected]; Moti Morgenstern; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Uri,
> 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for 
> the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next revision.
> 
> 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and 
> 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including both 
> physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this 
> MIB. ITU-T
> 998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it to be used

> on any xDSL technology. Therefore GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would 
> cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer management 
> to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
> 
> 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website (restricted to 
> the forum members only). Note that this is work in progress, don't 
> expect it to be complete.
> 
> Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can put this 
> document for group download?
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uri Shabi [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to 
> > give my comments,
> > 
> > 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> > "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data
> rates of all
> > BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation
> overhead and
> > G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> > As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the
> GBS of type
> > g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> > 
> > 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are almost 
> > the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the 
> > EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> > single one?
> > 
> > 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> > 
> > Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Adslmib mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > 
>