Last Modified: 2005-02-01
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft to cover subscriber equipment | |
| Done | Meet at Chicago IETF to review Internet-Drafts | |
| Done | Submit Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard. | |
| Done | Meet at Oslo IETF to review new Internet-Drafts and discuss implementation experience on initial MIB | |
| Done | Submit supplementary Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard. | |
| Done | Produce Internet-Draft covering HDSL2 management objects. | |
| Done | Submit updated HDSL2/SHDSL Internet-Draft | |
| Done | Complete WG last call for HDSL2/SHDSL management objects | |
| Done | Collect implementation reports for ADSL MIB | |
| Done | Submit HDSL2/SHDSL MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit initial Internet-Draft VDSL MIB | |
| Done | Complete WG last call on VDSL MIB | |
| Done | Submit updated VDSL MIB Internet-Draft | |
| Done | Submit final VDSL MIB Internet-Draft | |
| Done | Submit VDSL MIB to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard | |
| Done | New WG I-Ds for the LCS MCM and SCM MIB modules | |
| Nov 03 | New drafts addressing any issues from the Minneapolis meeting and DSLF liason from Nov. meeting. | |
| Dec 03 | Send LCS MCM and SCM MIB documnets to IESG for consideration as PS | |
| Dec 03 | WG Last Call for LCS MCM and SCM MIB documents | |
| Jan 04 | Evaluate if we have enough implementation feedback to work on RFC2662 (ADSL MIB) advancement | |
| Feb 04 | Re-charter or close down |
| RFC | Status | Title |
|---|---|---|
| RFC2662 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for the ADSL Lines |
| RFC3276 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for HDSL2 and SHDSL Lines |
| RFC3440 | PS | Definitions of Extension Managed Objects for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines |
| RFC3705 | Standard | High Capacity Textual Conventions for MIB Modules Using Performance History Based on 15 Minute Intervals |
| RFC3728 | Standard | Definitions of Managed Objects for Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Lines (VDSL) |
|
ADSLMIB Working Group - Minutes
62nd IETF, Minneapolis, MN USA March 7, 2005 Bob Ray, co-chair and secretary, called the meeting to order at 1300. Four people were in attendance. Area Director David Kessens arrived shortly after the meeting began. After presenting the agenda, Bob presented the status of the g.shdsl.bis draft, draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-08.txt. Clay Sikes, the primary author, was unable to attend but sent slides. There were no comments to the slides. Faye Ly was the next scheduled presenter, but having seen Moti Morgenstern's slides beforehand, she said her slides duplicated much of Moti's presentation and asked that we proceed to his presentation, skipping hers. There was no dissent. Moti the presented the status of the two vdsl lcs drafts. The primary author, Menachem Dodge, was unable to attend but sent slides. There were no comments to the slides. The following were comments and suggestions made during Moti's presentation of his ngadsl draft (hereafter referred to as "the draft". 1. Moti stated that the draft was largely based upon the technical recommendation of the DSL Forum, TR-090. 2. Faye noted that the draft and TR-090 do not support a method of connecting multiple channels to the interface MIB. She suggested that we petition IANA to provide another ADSL interface type, adsl_channel, in addition to the ones already assigned (fast and interleaved). Moti noted that while the model uses an index to identify the channel in question, that he was not adverse to having another interface type layered into the draft. The attendees agreed to "take it to the list". 3. Faye pointed out a problem with multi-channel bandwidth limitation, stating that the summation of the available maximum bandwidth allocations should be equal to the maximum available on the line. Otherwise, it was an "oversubscription" issue. Bob Ray pointed out that the aggregate maximum-per-channel bandwidth (sum of channels) defined in the channel as line impairment would render useless any assignment. Moti stated that this discussion was pointless in that, in his opinion and experience, no one ever subdivided an adsl line is this way; that it was over-engineering, a solution in search of a problem. The chair urged the issue be "taken to the list". 4. Faye mentioned that the draft does not maintain separate objects for ATU-C and ATU-R as RFC 2662 does. She argued that having them separate was "nicer". Moti said that the use of the word "nicer" was subjective and he wouldn't try to base a decision on it because of that. Bob Ray noted that the approach of using an index has been used in the RFC 3276 and RFC 3728. The chair urged the issue be "taken to the list". 5. David Kessens suggested that, given the small number of people in attendance (and that Bert Wijnen was having trouble hearing the audio feed), the attendees all move to the table at the front of the room so they would be closer to the microphone. When all were so congregated, David proclaimed the meeting "a REAL working group meeting". 6. The chair asked Moti if the DSL Forum documents, TR-090 and a mentioned but non-existent addendum to TR-090, were publicly available. Moti noted that TR-090 had been sent to the IETF and was available to the working group/mail list. As the addendum had not been written yet, it was not available yet. The chair said the IETF doesn't like non-public documentation. The area director further clarified by saying, to the effect, that like wasn't strong enough, does not allow was more accurate. All nodded at the sagacity of that statement. 7. Faye commented that the name of Moti's draft needed to be better than "next generation", or "ng". Moti stated that he didn't want to name it adsl2 as that implied restrictions as to the scope of adsl variants the draft might address. Faye suggested that the issue be "taken to the list" and all concurred. 8. Faye again mentioned the lack of separate objects for ATU-C and ATU-R, stating that having another index object made it difficult to implement RFC 3276. "Too many indices". In response, Moti asked if there were any implementation reports on RFC 2662 [note: a working group milestone that should be addressed very soon now]. There was mention of two or three. 9. Moti then discussed things that are missing in his draft. - test management support. Moti is adamant that "tests" and "diagnostics" are distinct. Faye asked pointedly if there is any user data being passed when a diagnostic is being run. - sub-carrier snr measurement time. - psd masks. Moti stated that these omissions were not because he didn't think they should be omitted, rather that that they were complex and required more thought. Faye suggested that the issue about interface status during diagnostics (up, down, under test) be taken to the list. 10. Moti briefly discussed the data returned by the diagnostics and that it made sense, in his opinion, to have them returned as OCTET STRINGs of fixed size rather than have an index. It was agreed that this was the better approach (given the overhead associated with walking an array of bytes). It was also noted that the bit ordering within these values needs to be specified in the draft. 11. Faye noted that if the draft used ifIndex for channel identification (see note 2, above), that Moti's "templates" would not be needed. Moti commented that "profile" and "template" mean the same thing in the draft. When Moti and Bob didn't understand how channel templates wouldn't be needed, Faye agreed to produce an example illustrating her point. "On the list". 12. There was a brief discussion as to whether the draft needed to address ATM objects. It was decided to leave this "for the list". At this point, Moti concluded his presentation. Bob said that the next agenda item was whether to extend the working group charter to encompass Moti's work (which would mean accepting the draft as a working group item). David pointed out that he would like to see more support than the four meeting attendees before extending the charter. It was agreed to take this item "to the list". The meeting was adjourned. |