Subject: [Adslmib] Draft minutes from 53rd IETF

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:50:53 -0500

Here is a draft of the minutes from the Minneapolis meeting.  Please post
any comments prior to April 4, at which point I will submit them to the
proceedings:

Minutes of ADSLMIB - 53rd IETF Minneapolis
20 March 2002
Minutes recorded by Mike Sneed.

The ADSLMIB Working Group met at 1:00pm on 20 March
2002.  The meeting followed the posted agenda.

The meeting began with announcement that the mailing
list has been down for about a month.  Inovia is no
longer able to host the list, and arrangements have
been made to have the IETF secretariat take over
administration of the list. The last backup of the
list itself is a couple of months old, so not all
subscribers may be notifiable when the new list is up.

Document status was reviewed.  The ADSL Extension MIB
is awaiting a final draft.  The SHDSL MIB is in the
RFC Editor queue.

The appropriate path for the 64 bit Performance
History TC document (once known as RFC2493bis), which
is needed for the VDSL MIB, was discussed. The
possibility of updating RFC2493 with a set of 64 bit
counters was rejected because documents which
reference it are attempting to advance in the
standards track. The consensus was that a second
standards track document containing the TCs should be
produced within ADSLMIB. It was pointed out that the
semantics of the performance counter are not
consistent with Counter64.  It was noted that this is
part of a larger problem with 64 bit objects, and that
therefore the document will be flawed.  The consensus
remained that ADSLMIB should produce a 64 bit TC
document for its own use, and which could be used by
others who are not deterred by its flaws.

Bob Ray led a discussion of the current VDSL MIB work.
Rajesh Abbi will join him as a co-editor of this
document. The DSL Forum is currently working on a
protocol independentlist of management objects for
VDSL.  Concern was expressed that there has not been
much feedback on the mailing list, and that this may
indicate that there is little interest in a standard
VDSL MIB or that the DSL Forum and IETF may be
proceeding independently. The chair will "liaison"
letter to the DSL Forum to solicit input on the list.

It was again asked what percentage of DSL equipment is
being managed by SNMP vs CLI and other mechanisms.
The consensus was that SNMP is widely used, along with
TL1, particularly in flow-through environments.

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