RE: More EFM - Clause 30 Management

Hi Mathias,

The latest officially published version is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-00.txt
from Jan 15th. I'm currently working on an update, nothing major yet, so you
can safely use the version above.

noPMEAssigned means that PAF is enabled but Aggregation register is all
zeros (no modems assigned).
Currently there's no limitation in the text that you have to have at least 1
bit set in the Aggregation.
May we should add that in.

noPeerPMEPresent means that there was no answer during handshake
initialization (as far as I understand it). It could also mean that the
modem on the other end physically exists but was excluded from the
aggregation as a result of Discovery (i.e. belongs to a different CPE
already taken by another CO). You are correct that there's no exact
definition in the draft.

I'm personally not concerned very much about Clause 30 as I discovered
during my work on the MIB that it is acceptable to reference Clause 45
registers if there is no substitute in clause 30. As you may notice from the
last published version of the MIB above, I almost exclusively referred to
Clause 45 registers.
However if you take that "optional" nature of Clause 45 to the extreme than
yes, we need all MIB objects reference Clause 30 objects (clause 30 is
mandatory).

I've added David Law, Dan Romascanu and HUBMIB group in Cc: as I find your
comments important.
Hope it's OK with you.

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 07:52 PM
> To: Edward Beili
> Subject: More EFM - Clause 30 Management
> 
> 
> Hi Edward,
> 	at the end of the last meeting in Vancouver, you sent 
> out an updated
> version of the HubMIB, is there already a newer version 
> available?? If yes,
> can you share it with us?? 
> 	Additionally I came across some questions, especailly management
> issues when I was reviewing draft 3.0. On clause 30 I have 
> the following
> questions:
> Clause 30.12.1.1.3 page 71, line 15: The value 'no PMEAssigned'
> 
> Does it mean that the physical layer is not up or does it 
> mean that the PME
> Aggregation register has just 1 bit set with the PAF enable 
> bit not set (no
> PAF) or does it relate to something else?
> 
> Clause 30.12.1.1.3 page 71, line 15: The value 'noPeerPMEPresent''
> 
> Again, it is not clear to what condition this releates to, is 
> it that the
> physical link is not up, that the remot TC is not 
> synchronized or is it
> intended to use some PMD parameter or is it the result of the 
> discovery
> phase, saying there is no link to be aggergatable with the 
> selected one??
> 
> In general I still think there are some Clause 30 parameter 
> missing if I
> want to bring up and manage an entire session using Clause 
> 30. From my point
> of view i.e.  the entire discovery phase seems to me somehow hidden to
> Clause 30. 
> May be I just miss some parts of the entire picture. So my question is
> whether there is kind of an overview/flow chart or something 
> similar showing
> how to bringing up/manage an EFM connection using Clause 30.
> 
> Thank you for your help!
> 
> Regards
> Mathias
>