RE: New things for the EFM-CU-MIB

Edward and WG participants.

This question has bee out on the mailing list for quite a while.
Edward already asked for opinions on this back on Dec 7th in a
posting to this mailing list. Since then we've had a couple of
answers that indicate they rather see the current work completed.

So I am inclined to tell the WG that we stick to what we have in
the current draft and do no new additions. I'll give the WG till
the end of this week to speak up more on this topic. If I do not
see more support for Edwards suggested changes, then we'll not
undertake them now.

Bert Wijnen
speaking as HUBMIB WG chair.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: maandag 19 februari 2007 13:10
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Matt Squire
> Subject: RE: [Hubmib] New things for the EFM-CU-MIB
>=20
> Dear Hubmib group members,
>=20
> I would like to hear your opinion on the proposed additions=20
> to the EFM-CU-MIB specified in my original mail below.
>=20
> Regards,
> -E.
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 16:22
> > To: Edward Beili; [email protected]
> > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] New things for the EFM-CU-MIB
> >=20
> > I believe that the WG should focus on completing the=20
> current charter=20
> > before discussing about any new work 'stemming from ...=20
> latest RFPs',=20
> > otherwise it risks to run forever trying to catch with the=20
> permanently=20
> > moving target of the Ethernet technology.
> >=20
> > Dan
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Squire [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:53
> > To: Edward Beili; [email protected]
> > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Dan Romascanu (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] New things for the EFM-CU-MIB
> >=20
> > Hi Ed -
> >=20
> > The second two seem useful.  The first one doesn't seem=20
> that useful as=20
> > it is easily derived from other entries.  In general, I'm not a big=20
> > fan of adding 2nd level data (e.g.
> > stuff derived from other stuff). =20
> >=20
> > My 2 cents.=20
> >=20
> > - Matt
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:41 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > Subject: [Hubmib] New things for the EFM-CU-MIB
> > >=20
> > > Hi,
> > >=20
> > > I would like to propose a few minor modifications to the=20
> EFM-CU-MIB,=20
> > > to provide support for some carrier requirements for the Ethernet=20
> > > over copper, stemming from some latest RFPs.
> > >=20
> > > 1. Add a new leaf to efmCuPortStatusTable, showing the equivalent=20
> > > length of the bonded link, which would be calculated as a=20
> median of=20
> > > all the efmCuPmeEquivalentLength in the link.
> > >=20
> > > 2. Add an optional ability to specify Min and Max noise margin=20
> > > (probably in efmCuPortConfEntry), which would allow one=20
> to configure=20
> > > the working SNR range for the lines in the bonded link, that is:
> > > - if the SNR Margin on the copper pair in the bonded link
> > > (efmCuPmeSnrMgn) goes below specified Min margin, the pair should=20
> > > re-train to achieve higher SNR margin than the Min (e.g.
> > > efmCuTargetSnrMgn)
> > > - if the SNR Margin on the copper pair goes above specified Max=20
> > > margin, the pair should/could lower its transmitted power (e.g.=20
> > > using Power Back-off if efmCuAdaptiveSpectra is true).
> > >=20
> > > 3. Add an ability to specify Min Power Back-off, to allow an=20
> > > operator to limit the signal transmit power to a lower level than=20
> > > that allowed by the spectral limitations placed by the=20
> > > efmCuPme2BRegion and efmCuPme2BsMode.
> > >=20
> > > I would appreciate your comments.
> > >=20
> > > Regards,
> > > -E.=20
>=20
>=20