Signaling MIB - Draft 3 - Last Call - Clarification US/in tl. requirements

I am concerned about many of the proposed clarifications. I previously commented:

"Remember, in the international market there is a hybrid need. For example, some operators use the L package and require E package extensions."

Clearly, there are situations where an operator uses L package AND E package features. Making references to ETSI only or NA only in the object descriptions is not accurate, and I think misleading. It is important to allow operators the flexibility to use the 
objects from the MIB they deem necessary for their operations.

As an alternative, I would propose adding comments to the introductory section of the MIB to make it clear that the term L package refers to the core functionality (as defined by CableLabs/PacketCable) and the term E package refers to extensions over and above the core package (defined in support of international requirements). Further, all references to ETSI and NA in the MIB object descriptions could then be eliminated in a subsequent draft of the MIB, and replaced with L or E package comments as appropriate.

Gordon Beacham
Digital Core Gateways, BCS
Motorola, Inc.
858-404-2335
[email protected]