18 Jul 2006 11:24
RE: Comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-00.txt
<Menachem.Dodge <at> ecitele.com>
2006-07-18 09:24:28 GMT
2006-07-18 09:24:28 GMT
Hello Naren,
I am very pleased that you and Veena have joined the Working Group and are willing to provide your time and
expertise in producing the VDSL2 MIB.
The next vdsl2 draft, version-01, is currently under work and has been slowed down by additional versions of the ADSL2 MIB
which have now been completed. I am expecting the editors to post the -01 draft by the end of the month and then I would like to request that
you and Veena review this new draft. Once we have your feedback on the document, and please include the modeling and descriptions in
the document as part of your review (as well as feedback from the rest of the WG), it will be possible to see how best to proceed in order to
incorporate all the changes into the document.
The names of all the editors of drafts/RFCs written by the ADSL MIB WG appear on the WG home page. The editors for the
Vdsl2 draft are Moti Morgenstern, Umberto Bonollo and Scott Baillie.
I encourage both you and Veena to continue to participate in this work, as the document produced is a product of
the whole Working Group and not of any single individual, and you can certainly contribute greatly to the outcome.
Best Regards,
Menachem Dodge
| <narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com>
18/07/2006 05:29 |
|
Hello Menachem,
We are willing to put in efforts.
a) I found the draft to be in a very preliminary stage (virtually same
as ADSL2 draft), most of the VDSL2 stuff were missing. This was what
triggered the thought of co-authoring.
b) Is adding our names in the document the only thing that is preventing
us being from being a co-author? If yes, then, we have absolutely no
issues whatsoever if our names don't appear in the document. For us, it
is more fun to do this kind of stuff than the prospect of our names
appearing on the document.
BTW, I don't remember the names of all the guys (except Moti) who wrote
the adsl2/vdsl/adsl mibs
c) Veena and I have been writing network management application
software. I believe there is a different perspective that we can bring
to the document, especially in terms of modeling and the descriptions in
the document. This is the value we propose to bring in.
Regards,
Naren
-----Original Message-----
From: Menachem.Dodge <at> ecitele.com [mailto:Menachem.Dodge <at> ecitele.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:36 PM
To: Narendranath Nair (WT01 - Broadband Networks)
Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] Comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-00.txt
Hello Vena, Naren,
I was at the IETF meeting last week and hence the late response.
The WG appreciates your comments and reviews and your willingness
to
take on the role of co-editor.
I hope that you have read the document "Guidelines to Authors of
Internet
Drafts", and assume that you are willing to spend the time and effort
needed in this role. I need to be able to see that an additional
editor,
(I prefer one rather than two), will enhance the quality of the document
and
shorten the time of delivery of each draft. I will discuss this with the
three current editors before giving my decision.
Please note that you can certainly influence the content of the
document even without being an editor and your work in reviewing
the document will be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgement Section" of
the
document.
Best Regards,
Menachem
<narendranath.nai
r <at> wipro.com>
To
10/07/2006 13:31 <adslmib <at> ietf.org>
cc
Subject
[Adslmib] Comments on
draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-00.txt
Hello Moti, Menachem,
Please find our comments herewith.
We would like to co-author the draft and implement the missing
parameters along with Moti and others. Would this be acceptable?
Regards
Veena, Naren
Comments
--------
draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-00.txt comments
Reviewers: Veena, Naren
Generic comment:
For us, there seems to be a major disconnect between what is modeled in
the draft and the input documents. The draft is very similar to the
ADSL2 MIB that has been proposed. The input documents we refer to here
are: ITU-T 993.2 and DSL Forum Working Text WT-129.
Detailed comments
1. VDSL2 supports the definition, of band plans up to 30 MHz to support
a bi-directional net data rate up to 200 Mbit/s. The modeling for band
plans has not been done in the draft. Ideally, the profile definitions
should support the ability to define different band plans.
2. The ranges in the subcarrier status group also need to change to
support more than 512 carriers.
3. It is possible to use US0 band for VDSL2. The draft doesn't provide
modeling for US0 band.
4. VDSL2 requires VTUx to notch simultaneously, 16 arbitrary
operator-defined RFI bands (e.g. HAM bands); This is to blackout
selectively some subcarriers. This is not modeled in the draft.
5. The VDSL2 MIB should support for a MIB-controlled PSD mask mechanism
to provide the ability to define a limit PSD mask.
6. VDSL2 allows to optionally specify if cyclic extension is
allowed/supported or not. The MIB doesn't provide this support.
7. PTM/ATM have been modeled, VDSL2 can use STM also, the MIB should
support this too.
8. The MIB doesn't provide support for enabling/disabling the optional
all-digital mode.
9. The MIB doesn't model the Line Transmission Mode parameters specific
to VDSL2 (e.g. the eight profiles see Table 6-1/G.993.2 - VDSL2 profiles
of ITU-T G993.2).
--
Narendranath Nair
Lead Architect, Network Management,
Wipro Technologies, Keonics Electronics City,
Bangalore - 560 100, India
Tel: +91-80-28520408 Ext. 85338
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
Adslmib <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
Adslmib <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
_______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list Adslmib <at> ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
RSS Feed