RE: Response to EPON-MIB-04

David,

I have no strong feelings on this, but I still would argue that EFM is a
better prefix. Although true that EFM OAM may apply to any Ethernet
link, this is kind of a side effect, it still was designed as part of
the 802.3ah project. EFM is the name the whole planet knows this
technology, and it is recognized as such in the overview section of
clause 67 of the IEEE document quoted by you. Moreover, we did not
follow a strict dot3 prefixing policy in the past, starting now when the
last MIB modules are on the exit gate seems a little odd.

I agree with you on the need of consistency between the module name and
the identifiers of the module and object names. 

Regards,

Dan




 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:40 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email protected]; Hub MIB
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] Response to EPON-MIB-04
> 
> HI,
> 
> First, I was pointing out an inconsistancy between the module 
> name and the descriptor for the the MODULE-IDENTITY.
> In lior's lastest I-D, there are
>    DOT3-EFM-EPON-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
>     <<text deleted>>
>    dot3EponMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
> 
> This is inconsistent. Thus, the module name should be  
> DOT3-EPON-MIB or the descriptor should be  dot3EfmEponMIB
> 
> However, with regards to the naming scheme for the collection 
> of documents, I believe the that "EFM"
> is not approapriate for the dot3 OAM MIB module (since it 
> applies to any dot3 technology), and whether or not the EFM 
> is part of the EPON or CU MIB modules, this is something for 
> the WG to decide.
> However, it seems to me that EFM is a marketing term and the 
> dot3 is more appropriate. The 802.3ah document calls the CU 
> and EPON technology "Subscriber access networks" in the 
> document title, and then and inside the document there are 
> phrases like:
> 67.1 Overview
> This clause provides information on building Ethernet 
> subscriber access networks, also referred to as "Ethernet in 
> the First Mile", or EFM networks. 
> 
> Given than "copper" when describing dot3 is ambiguous, then 
> an additional adjective is needed. But with EPON, there is no 
> ambiguity. Thus, I suggest the following module names:
>   DOT3-EPON-MIB (or DOT3-EFM-EPON-MIB)
>   DOT3-EFM-CU-MIB
>   DOT3-OAM-MIB 
> 
> Then have consistent descriptors for items defined in the MIB 
> modules. For the lastest OAM and EPON modules, the prefixes 
> are dot3Oam and dot3Epon (plus dot3Mpcp, dot3OmpE, etc).
> The CU module has prefixe emfCu.
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > What is exactly the rationale for this request, David? 
> > 
> > The other MIB modules in the family are named EFM-COMMON-MIB and 
> > EFM-CU-MIB. If we are to look for consistency, the names of the MIB 
> > modules defined in this document should be EFM-EPON-MIB and 
> > EFM-EPON-DEVICE-MIB.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Dan
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David T. Perkins [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:43 PM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Hub MIB
> > > Subject: Re: [Hubmib] Response to EPON-MIB-04
> > > 
> > > HI,
> > > 
> > > Just saw one more small item. The MIB module is named 
> > > "DOT3-EFM-EPON-MIB". I suggest that the name "DOT3-EPON-MIB"
> > > be used instead.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > /david t. perkins
> 
> Regards,
> /david t. perkins
> 
>