RE: Re: Liaison to DSL Forum

Dan,

        Ok, I will copy the hubmib WG and David Kessens on all further 
emails on this subject.

        I believe that the only impact for the hubmib WG is the change 
that was stated earlier for the Efm Cu MIB namely, 
the separation of the ifAvailableStack MIB and the addition of the 
ifInvAvailableStack MIB into a distinct MIB module with 
revised DESCRIPTION. 

 
Best Regards,
Menachem





"Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email protected]> 
03/09/2006 12:49

To
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc
David Kessens <[email protected]>, [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject
RE: [Adslmib] 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] 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] 
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]> 
  
       Peter Adams, 
       DSL Forum Operations and Network Management Working Group Chair 
       "Peter Adams" <[email protected]> 
  
  
Cc:    IETF [email protected] 
       [email protected] 
 
       Loa Andersson 
       "Loa Andersson" <[email protected]> 
  
       Dan Romascanu 
       Operations and Management Area Director 
       "Romascanu, Dan" <[email protected]> 
  
       Michael Sneed 
       IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair 
       "Michael Sneed" [email protected] 
        
  
From:  IETF ADSL MIB Working Group 
  
Response  contact:   Menachem Dodge 
                        IETF ADSL MIB Working Group Co-Chair 
                        "Menachem Dodge" <[email protected]> 
  
Technical contact:      "Menachem Dodge" <[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. 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] 
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

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