Subject: [Adslmib] 62nd IETF adslmib wg meeting minutes

From: "Ray, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:48:54 -0600

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