RE: RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work

ok.
-E.

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:35 PM
To: Edward Beili; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; David Kessens (E-mail); [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work


Ed,
 
Please issue a revised I-D, including the two tables in a distinct MIB module, revised DESCRIPTION clause and smilint fixes.
 
My suggestion is to do a one week fast track Last Call to make sure that everybody in the WG has an opportunity to see and react to the changes before we submit the draft to the IESG. 
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
 
 


  _____  

From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:04 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; David Kessens (E-mail); [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work


Dan,
I don't have any problem with the suggested change, and, personally, see this as an editorial change.
 
While moving the ifAvailableStackTable to a distinct MIB module (say IF-AVAILABLE-STACK-MIB, seating directly under MIB-2), I would also add an inverse table ifInvAvailableStackTable.
 
Please advise how do you want me to proceed.
 
Regards,
-Edward
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; David Kessens (E-mail); Edward Beili; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work


 
So this will be a distinct MIB module. 
 
I am copying the hubmib WG list, because I am not convinced that such a change can be treated as editorial and that we can or should avoid another WGLC for draft-hubmib-efm-cu-mib. 
 
Dan
 
 
 
 


  _____  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: [email protected]; David Kessens (E-mail); [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work



Hello Dan, 

        What you suggest is fine, but I would rather that the table be placed under the ifMIB - ifMIBObjects branch together with 
the ifStack Table or perhaps directly under MIB-2 as the ifInvertedStack MIB is situated. Being placed inside the efmCuMIB branch 
seems to suggest  that it is  for the sole use of the efmCuMIB and this is no longer the case if the xDSL MIB modules import it. 
        

Best Regards, 
Menachem Dodge




"Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email protected]> 


27/08/2006 12:47 


To
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]> 

cc
[email protected], "David Kessens \(E-mail\)" <[email protected]>, [email protected] 

Subject
[Adslmib] RE: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work	

		




Menachem, 
  
I am adding David Kessens who is the shepherding AD for hubmib (I, being the chair, cannot play both roles). 
  
Why should ifAvailableStack be defined in a separate MIB module, rather than changing the text in DESCRIPTION clauses and having it imported by ADSL MIB modules from EFM-CU-MIB? 
  
Speaking as WG chair, I feel that in case a major change is introduced in the document the WGLC needs to be redone. At this moment we agreed for a technical iteration to fix some smilint problems without redoing the LC. 
  
Dan 
  
  
  


  _____  

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:08 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: xDSL Bonding - Reuse of the hubmib-efm-cu-mib work


Hello Dan, 


       Recently the issue of xDSL bonding has been raised on the ADSL MIB WG mailing list. 

       I have spoken briefly with Edward and we think that it should be possible for us to re-use the ifAvailableStack table defined in 
draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-05. 

       I would like to ask Edward to separate out this table into a separate MIB (possibly in the same document) generalizing the comments, 
that would allow the ADSL MIB WG  to make use of these tables, if this work becomes chartered. 

       I would appreciate your advice on this issue. 

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