RE: Hubmib documents status

Bert - 

The -05 version of draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib was submitted early today
as an Internet draft, and should be showing up in the database early
next week.  The changes from the -04 version are:

- Changed last paragraph of Section 5 as per D Perkins comment

- Changed text around the initial OUI value from "zero" to "three octets
of zero" per D Perkins comment

- Changed PDU size information to (0|64..1518) rather than (0..1518)
with text saying "1..63 are not allowed"

- Changed the order of enable/disable in the OAM state variable, and
changed the order of passive/active in the OAM mode variable to match
the order of these values in Clause 30 of 802.3 based on suggestions
from yourself and Dan

- Changed headers/titles to reflect new version and date

Everything else should be the same as in the -04 version.  

- Matt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:00 AM
> To: Hubmib Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: [Hubmib] Hubmib documents status
> 
> Dear HUBMIB WG members.
> 
> Below is the status of the documents that we have on our plate.
> This is the status that Dan reported to me, after which I did
> a little bit of follow up.
> 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt
> waiting for revision after MIB Doctor review by David Perkins and
> following discussion. I (Bert) have an outstanding ping to Matt
> Squire, the editor of this document, for a response on this.
> I really hope we can have an answer and a revised MIB document soon.
> 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-05.tx
t
> revised after MIB Doctor review by Dave Perkins. No confirmation
> from David if he is happy with this version. I (Bert) have pinged
> David to see if we can get an answer soon.
> 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05.txt
> submitted to the AD for consideration as Proposed Standard. Mike Heard
> assigned as MIB Doctor, has done review and reported so to our WG list
> a few days ago. I (Bert) havce re-issued a request for Publication
> (with a few changes to the proto-write-up) which I have copied
> (earlier today) to the WG list. So for this document, we DID make the
> milestones as listed in our current WG charter.
> 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
> following WGLC of revision 5, a set of changes was required, including
> moving the ifAvailableStackTable to a distinct MIB module (say
> IF-AVAILABLE-STACK-MIB, seating directly under MIB-2) and adding an
> inverse table ifInvAvailableStackTable, which would allow the ADSLMIB
> WG to refer and re-use them. The new revison (6) was posted on
> Oct 12th. I (Bert) am hereby asking the WG for review (I will issue a
> WG LC in a separate message) to approve the changes.
> 
> Pls note that these 3 documents
> 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-
> 05.txt
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-04.txt
> 
> all 3 have a milestone in our current WG charter for submission to the
> IESG in November 2006. So we have max 6 weeks to complete this work.
> 
> Bert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hubmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib