Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RFC3276 respin

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:34:44 +0100

> If ("IF") there were another spin on RFC3276, then, would the following
> list of changes suffice to support g.shdsl.bis (from Clay's list)?
> 
> 1. Hdsl2ShdslWirePair TC - add wirePair3(3) and wirePair4(4)
> 2. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface - add sixWire(3) and eightWire(4)
> 3. hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate - remove the range limit
> 4. hdsl2ShdslStatusActualLineRate - remove the range limit
> 5. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMinLineRate - remove the range limit
> 6. hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMaxLineRate - remove the range limit
> 
> Would these do it?  Would this be all?  Would this break any existing
> implementations (at least of embedded agents)?  Would the above break
> any management apps?  
> 
> It doesn't look like it would - it sure looks like any new devices
> would simply have a "looser" range of values in 5 objects.
> 
Formally, I do not think that you can remove the range limits.
See RFC2578, sect 10.

However, I agree that it does not seem to be harmfull. It certainly
would not have any impact for the on the wire protocol.

I think I could go along with the change if we were to update the
current MODULE-COMPLIANCE such that the current ranges are inlcuded
there, and then do a new MODULE-COMPLIANCE that allows for the new
values, certainly for the read-write objects. 

Similar fixes to MODULE-COMPLIANCE would be recommend for the enumerated
objects.

Hope this helps,
Bert
> -- 
> Bob Ray <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> 

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

---

From: Bob Ray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:18:48 -0600

> Formally, I do not think that you can remove the range limits.

Adding additional enumerations to Hdsl2ShdslWirePair and
hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface are certainly allowed by 2578,
section 10.2 note (1), so that is straight forward.

> Similar fixes to MODULE-COMPLIANCE would be recommend for the enumerated

I'm trying to understand - please bear with me.

So, one would leave the original object declaration alone, such as:

hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate OBJECT-TYPE
   SYNTAX      Unsigned32(0..4112000)
   blah blah blah

but add entries in the compliance section of the form:

OBJECT      hdsl2ShdslStatusMaxAttainableLineRate
            SYNTAX   Unsigned32(0..92520000)
            DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

Is this right?  If so, I guess similar entries would be required for 
	hdsl2ShdslStatusActualLineRate,
	hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMinLineRate, and 
	hdsl2ShdslSpanConfMaxLineRate.

For hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface, then, would the following be
the right syntax (in the compliance section)?

OBJECT      hdsl2ShdslSpanConfWireInterface
            SYNTAX      INTEGER
            {
               twoWire(1),
               fourWire(2),
               sixWire(3),
               eightWire(4)
            }
            DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

If the above is correct, then, the only one left is the textual
convention Hdsl2ShdslWirePair.  How does one extend a textual convention
in the compliance section?  I don't think I've ever seen this done.

Does one add an entry stating:

TEXTUAL-CONVENTION Hdsl2ShdslWirePair
           SYNTAX    INTEGER
           {
           wirePair1(1),
           wirePair2(2),
           wirePair3(3),
           wirePair4(4)
           }
           DESCRIPTION
                 "An extended range is applicable when implementing
		  g.shdsl.bis."

Looks odd, I guess, but I don't know the way :)

Process questions

a) Were some industrious person to submit a "respin of 3276" with the above
changes, would they submit a new draft to the ietf draft editor as an
individual contribution or striaght away to the adslmib working group?

b) Would this draft contain the full text of RFC3276 in draft form (vs
RFC form) along with the above modifications?

c) Would it be permissible to submit a draft noting the changes necessary
to support g.shdsl.bis?  That is, essentially a draft with all of the
above changes discussed textually ala RFC3593?

Bob

---

From: "Clay Sikes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:20:49 -0500

Bob and Bert,

Thanks for moving this forward.

On the limits for the rates, I think a lot of tools that compile MIBs 
for agents and managers may actually generate code to check any 
specified limits. I seem to recall, for example, the SNMP Research 
product does that. They may not actually use the MODULE-COMPLIANCE. If 
you would like, I could send them an email and ask them. Just let me know.

If we can hammer out these details, with some guidance, I would be 
willing to help in any way. My employer won't send me to IETF meeting, 
but if there is anything I can do to help, I'm willing. It sounds like a 
great opportunity to learn the process and enable me to contribute in 
the future.

Thanks!
Clay

---

From: Bob Ray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:54:11 -0600

> you would like, I could send them an email and ask them. Just let me know.

And bother Dr.,er, Professor Case out on the farm?  About this time of
year, he's working full time securing pump handles.

Rhetorically, if their recognizer/compiler ignores MODULE-COMPLIANCE
statements and the changes are all legally specified through
MODULE-COMPLIANCE statements, which is imperfect?

> great opportunity to learn the process and enable me to contribute in 

A volunteer! 

-- 
Bob Ray <[email-masked]>

---------------------------------------------------

Footnotes for those outside the United States:

a) Members of The University of Tennessee sports teams are called
Volunteers.
b) SNMP Research, Inc. was established on a farm outside of Knoxville,
Tennessee by Jeff Case, who was/is associated with the University of
Tennessee Electrical Engineering Department.
c) The University of Tennessee is in Knoxville, Tennessee.
d) Jeff Case often uses the saying, "You don't need to lick a pump
handle in February to know it's a bad idea".
e) February in Knoxville, Tennessee can be quite cold.
f) Graduates of The University of Alabama, which I attended, are
typically not very fond of The University of Tennessee, in a collegial,
competitive, sort of way. :)
g) We tend to wonder about the origins of Dr. Case's favorite saying.