RE: Re: EFM MIB - Work Plan and Re-charter Proposal

Dan,

I'm happy with your charter and timescales.  If separate PHY-specific parts
are used, I suggest separating the core EFM objects from any PHY-specific
objects.  But I have no opinion on separating or combining the PHY-specific
parts.

Thanks,
	-- John

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 01 September 2003 07:48
To: Grant Schnebly; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Re: EFM MIB - Work Plan and Re-charter Proposal


Grant,

Thank you for the message. A few points:

1. As I wrote in my message, I was not aware about cases of simultaneous
support of copper and optical in the same 'box'. You gave me an example that
such solutions do exist. This being the first input in this direction, I
invite other folks who are aware similar cases to provide their inputs, in
order to help us understand if this is an exception, or there are more such
cases out there. 
2. The IEEE work (Annex 30A and 30B) are our principal model in defining the
Ethernet MIB objects. However, the IETF Ethernet MIB is not constrained in
following exactly the model and structure defined by IEEE. 
3. Whatever the outcome of the discussion ('one MIB module' vs. 'separate
MIB modules'), we are still in waiting for a volunteer to edit the common
OAM portion. Up to now Edward Beili volunteered to be editor of he EFM Cu
MIB, and Lior Khermosh volunteered for the EPON part. Who will be doing the
core EFM OAM side - which is mainly in my view reflecting the common OAM set
of objects from IEEE Annex 30? 

So, in order for me as WG Chair to forward the re-charter proposal to the
Area Director for approval we need:
a. a name the common EFM OAM MIB editor
b. some more comments - approval or disapproval - on the Charter proposal
that I posted a couple of weeks ago. Even a short note 'yes, I like it'
would be enough. 

Thanks, 

Dan