RE: Re: Liaison to DSL Forum

Menachem,
 
I would suggest that you make clear the impact of this charter action on
the current charter and schedules of hubmib, if there is any. For this
purpose I would suggest that you copy [email protected] on further mails
on this subject. 
 
Please also copy David Kessens. As I am wearing both AD and hubmib chair
hats, it's better to have both ADs looking at this. 
 
Dan
 
 
 
 
 
 


  _____  

	From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:08 PM
	To: [email protected]
	Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Re: Liaison to DSL Forum
	
	

	It seems that there is agreement for a common MIB that will hold
the common information and will then reference 3 specific MIBs 
	for the ATM, Ethernet and TDIM specific parameters. 
	
	Unless I hear something to the contrary, I will draft a charter
and present it on the mailing list early next week. 
	
	Best Regards, 
	Menachem 
	
	
	
	
<[email protected]> 

31/08/2006 14:07 

To
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> 
cc
[email protected] 
Subject
RE: [Adslmib] Re: Liaison to DSL Forum

	




	I am also in agreement with having a common MIB and then
specific ones based on the L2 technology type. 
	  
	Regards 
	Naren 
	  

  _____  


	From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:20 PM
	To: [email protected]; [email protected]
	Cc: [email protected]
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Re: Liaison to DSL Forum 
	  
	I agree with Frank, there should be a separate MIB for each
G.Bond specification. 
	  
	The ifAvailableStackTable and ifStackTable (with their inverse
counterparts) are of course common for all 3 MIBs. 
	  
	We could create a common MIB for all 3 specifications, providing
G.Bond overview, referencing 3 specific MIBs and may be even providing
some common objects in a MIB, for example LowBandwidth trap etc. 
	  
	Regards, 
	-E. 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
	Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:35 AM
	To: [email protected]
	Cc: [email protected]
	Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Re: Liaison to DSL Forum 
	Menachem,
	Liaison is OK.
	On the bonding MIB: the three bonding standards each handle
different things (cells, packets,bits).
	So I believe the MIBs should be separate as I expect a lot of
the managed objects will be different.
	Regards,
	Frank
	
	
	[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
	
	
	Hello, 
	
	       I haven't received any further feedback on the Liaison,
so I will send it to the DSL Forum. 
	
	               Regarding xDSL bonding issue, I believe that: 
	
	       1.  There is Working Group agreement to base our work on
the three ITU-T specifications: G.998.1 (ATM), G.998.2 (Ethernet) and
G.998.3 (TDIM). 
	
	       2. There are differing opinions as to whether there
should be one MIB or 3 separate MIBs to handle the three 
	cases - ATM, Ethernet, and TDIM. 
	
	
	       I wish to resolve this issue now, so I would appreciate
if everyone would state their opinion (again). 
	
	Best Regards, 
	Menachem 
	
	
	

	
Menachem Dodge/ECI Telecom 

28/08/2006 19:02 



To
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  
cc
  
Subject
Liaison to DSL Forum

  



  	 



	
	
	Hi, 
	
	       I have added an additional paragraph informing the DSL
Forum of our progress on the VDSL2 MIB (as per the charter). Let me know

	if you have any comments, until Wednesday 30th August. 
	
	
	
	
	
	       ========================== 
	
	
	       Regarding the xDSL Bonding, I have several volunteers for
editors of the document(s) but I need to know if there is anyone 
	prepared to review the document. Please let me know (privately
if you wish) whether you are willing to review the document. It would be
helpful 
	to know if there is anyone who will be implementing the MIB as
well. 
	
	       Once I have this, the following steps are required: 
	
	       1. I will put forward a modified charter for approval by
the Working Group. 
	       2. Once approved by the Working Group, I will send the
new charter text to the AD, Dan Romascanu, requesting that he brings the

	charter to the IESG for approval. 
	
	
	       ======================== 
	
	               Regarding the Vdsl2 draft, I would like to see
some review, comments, feedback .... 
	               
	
	Best Regards, 
	Menachem 
	

	
	
	
  _____  

	
	
	

	  
	Subject: Response To Your Liaison on WT-129. 
	  
	Date:  28th August, 2006. 
	  
	  
	To:    Gavin Young, 
	       DSL Forum Technical Committee Chair 
	       "Gavin Young" <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	       Peter Adams, 
	       DSL Forum Operations and Network Management Working Group
Chair 
	       "Peter Adams" <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	  
	Cc:    IETF [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  
	       [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  
	        
	       Loa Andersson 
	       "Loa Andersson" <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	       Dan Romascanu 
	       Operations and Management Area Director 
	       "Romascanu, Dan" <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	       Michael Sneed 
	       IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair 
	       "Michael Sneed" [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>  
	        
	  
	From:  IETF ADSL MIB Working Group 
	  
	Response  contact:   Menachem Dodge 
	                        IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair 
	                        "Menachem Dodge"
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	Technical contact:      "Menachem Dodge"
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>  
	  
	  
	PURPOSE: Response 
	  
	Subject: Response To Your Liaison on WT-129. 
	  
	Dear Gavin and Peter, 
	  
	  
	      Thank you for your liaison and WT-129 Version 3.0. We
would be very grateful if 
	you would continue to keep us informed of any changes to this
Working Text document. 
	  
	      As I informed you in February this year, work has begun on
development of a MIB 
	for DSL (ADSL, ADSL2, ADSL2+ and VDSL2) lines. This work has
progressed and the latest draft 
	can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-01.txt> .
We would 
	be most pleased, if you would inform us of any feedback that the
DSL Forum may have on this 
	document. 
	  
	      We would like to raise the issue of xDSL Bonding, as
defined by the ITU-T documents 
	 G.998.1, G.998.2 and G.998.3.  The management of xDSL Bonded
lines has currently not been 
	addressed, by the DSL Forum. The IETF ADSL MIB Working Group
believes that this issue is important 
	and would be very pleased if the DSL Forum Operations and
Network Management Working Group 
	would address this issue and provide a management framework for
xDSL Bonding. 
	  
	  
	      Yours Sincerely, 
	  
	  
	      Menachem Dodge 
	        IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair 
	  
	  
	  
	      

	
	
	
  _____  

	
	
	

	  
	_______________________________________________ 
	Adslmib mailing list 
	[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>  
	  _______________________________________________
	Adslmib mailing list
	[email protected]
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib