Re: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

I cannot find this adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt document on the adslmib 
webpage.  Where is it?

WT-157 = Management Framework for xDSL Bonding
It is on DSLF website for DSLForum members download

Frank

Uri Shabi wrote:

> Hi all,
> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to give
> my comments,
>
> 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data rates of all
> BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation overhead and
> G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the GBS of type
> g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
>
> 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are almost the
> same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the EFM-Cu
> and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a single one?
>
> 3. Where can I get WT-157?
>
> Appreciate your comments, Uri.
>

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Hello Frank,

	It is in the Internet-Drafts section on the web page. You may
need to refresh your browser or exit and 
open it again, as this page was updated in the last 24 hours.

	Best Regards,
	Menachem.

-----Original Message-----
From: frank.van_der_putten <at> alcatel-lucent.be
[mailto:frank.van_der_putten <at> alcatel-lucent.be] 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:44 PM
To: Uri Shabi
Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

I cannot find this adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt document on the adslmib 
webpage.  Where is it?

WT-157 = Management Framework for xDSL Bonding
It is on DSLF website for DSLForum members download

Frank

Uri Shabi wrote:

> Hi all,
> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to
give

IETF 68th Meeting in Prague

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
Adslmib <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Uri,
1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in
the next revision.

2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE
802.3ah, including both physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this MIB. ITU-T
998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it to be used on any xDSL technology. Therefore
GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer
management to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.

3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website (restricted to the forum members only). Note that
this is work in progress, don't expect it to be complete.

Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can put this document for group download?

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Hi all,
> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would 
> like to give my comments,
> 
> 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data 
> rates of all BCEs in the aggregation group, without the 
> encapsulation overhead and G.Bond overhead, but accounting 
> for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the GBS of type
> g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> 
> 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are 
> almost the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, 
> there are the EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs 
> and not keep with a single one?
> 
> 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> 
> Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

 Dan,

Since the HUBMIB and the ADSLMIB are sharing modules for various
solutions, would not it be a good idea to have a shared applicability
draft explaining how to handle the MIB modules of the two groups for the
various solutions?

Orly

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 17:04
To: Uri Shabi; Menachem Dodge
Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Uri,
1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for the
Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next revision.

2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and
10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including both physical
layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this MIB. ITU-T
998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it to be used
on any xDSL technology. Therefore GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would
cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer management to
corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.

3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website (restricted to
the forum members only). Note that this is work in progress, don't
expect it to be complete.

Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can put this
document for group download?

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Hi all,
> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to 
> give my comments,
> 
> 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data rates of all 
> BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation overhead and 
> G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the GBS of type
> g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> 
> 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are almost 
> the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the 
> EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> single one?
> 
> 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> 
> Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> 

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Orly,
I think a relevant "relationship to *-MIB" section in GBOND-MIB would be a good place to put such a clarification.
Alternatively we could add a new "solution applicability" section.

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n <at> rad.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 18:11
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; 
> narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi; Edward Beili
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
>  Dan,
> 
> Since the HUBMIB and the ADSLMIB are sharing modules for 
> various solutions, would not it be a good idea to have a 
> shared applicability draft explaining how to handle the MIB 
> modules of the two groups for the various solutions?
> 
> Orly
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 17:04
> To: Uri Shabi; Menachem Dodge
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Uri,
> 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only 
> correct for the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next 
> revision.
> 
> 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) 
> and 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including 
> both physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just 
> sent for this MIB. ITU-T
> 998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it 
> to be used on any xDSL technology. Therefore GBOND-MIB and 
> GBOND-ETH-MIB would cover just the bonding management, 
> leaving physical layer management to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
> 
> 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website 
> (restricted to the forum members only). Note that this is 
> work in progress, don't expect it to be complete.
> 
> Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can 
> put this document for group download?
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> > To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to 
> > give my comments,
> > 
> > 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> > "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data 
> rates of all 
> > BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation 
> overhead and 
> > G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> > As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the 
> GBS of type
> > g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> > 
> > 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are almost 
> > the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the 
> > EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> > single one?
> > 
> > 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> > 
> > Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Adslmib mailing list
> > Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > 
> 

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

I was thinking of an external document in order to ensure coverage of
all those related modules of the 2 groups. Would not it be limited if we
have such in one of the module only, like this GBOND-MIB?Would not it be
just from the bonding aspects, or could we really cover the phy and
logical layer too without getting out of scope? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 05:10
To: Orly Nicklass; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com;
Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Orly,
I think a relevant "relationship to *-MIB" section in GBOND-MIB would be
a good place to put such a clarification.
Alternatively we could add a new "solution applicability" section.

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n <at> rad.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 18:11
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; 
> Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi; Edward Beili
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
>  Dan,
> 
> Since the HUBMIB and the ADSLMIB are sharing modules for various 
> solutions, would not it be a good idea to have a shared applicability 
> draft explaining how to handle the MIB modules of the two groups for 
> the various solutions?
> 
> Orly
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 17:04
> To: Uri Shabi; Menachem Dodge
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Uri,
> 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for 
> the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next revision.
> 
> 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and 
> 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including both 
> physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this 
> MIB. ITU-T
> 998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it to be used

> on any xDSL technology. Therefore GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would 
> cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer management 
> to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
> 
> 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website (restricted to 
> the forum members only). Note that this is work in progress, don't 
> expect it to be complete.
> 
> Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can put this 
> document for group download?
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> > To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to 
> > give my comments,
> > 
> > 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> > "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data
> rates of all
> > BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation
> overhead and
> > G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> > As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the
> GBS of type
> > g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> > 
> > 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are almost 
> > the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the 
> > EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> > single one?
> > 
> > 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> > 
> > Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Adslmib mailing list
> > Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > 
> 

Re: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Eduard hi,
Regarding the overlap I refer to the bonding capability. The 
GBOND-ETH-MIB of course handle this and the EFM-CU-MIB also includes the 
PCS which is the aggregation layer. The ITU is a copy of the IEEE with 
some extension.
Why do we need both? Uri.

Edward Beili wrote:
> Uri,
> 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for the Ethernet service. I'll correct it
in the next revision.
>
> 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE
802.3ah, including both physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this MIB. ITU-T
998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it to be used on any xDSL technology. Therefore
GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer
management to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
>
> 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website (restricted to the forum members only). Note that
this is work in progress, don't expect it to be complete.
>
> Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I can put this document for group download?
>
> Regards,
> -E.
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
>> To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
>> Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would 
>> like to give my comments,
>>
>> 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
>> "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data 
>> rates of all BCEs in the aggregation group, without the 
>> encapsulation overhead and G.Bond overhead, but accounting 
>> for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
>> As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the GBS of type
>> g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
>>
>> 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these are 
>> almost the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, 
>> there are the EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs 
>> and not keep with a single one?
>>
>> 3. Where can I get WT-157?
>>
>> Appreciate your comments, Uri.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Adslmib mailing list
>> Adslmib <at> ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>>
>>     

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Uri,
The EFM-CU-MIB is finished with regards to adding new functionality. While the bonding layer management
of IEEE 802.3ah and ITU-T G.998.2 are similar, there are differences, e.g. 802.3ah specifies
symmetrical PHYs, so there's a single object for the Target Rate (efmCuTargetDataRate object in
EFM-CU-MIB); G.998.2 supports asymmetrical links, so all the objects related to the data rate have
duplicates (one for the upstream and another for the downstream rate).
There are other extensions in the G.998.2 that justify creation of a new MIB, like usage of channels instead
of PMEs etc.

Regards,
-E.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 14:45
> To: Edward Beili
> Cc: Menachem Dodge; adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; 
> narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; Orly Nicklass
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Eduard hi,
> Regarding the overlap I refer to the bonding capability. The 
> GBOND-ETH-MIB of course handle this and the EFM-CU-MIB also 
> includes the PCS which is the aggregation layer. The ITU is a 
> copy of the IEEE with some extension.
> Why do we need both? Uri.
> 
> Edward Beili wrote:
> > Uri,
> > 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only 
> correct for the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next 
> revision.
> >
> > 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) 
> and 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including 
> both physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just 
> sent for this MIB. ITU-T 998.2 takes the bonding as defined 
> in 802.3ah but allows it to be used on any xDSL technology. 
> Therefore GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would cover just the 
> bonding management, leaving physical layer management to 
> corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
> >
> > 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website 
> (restricted to the forum members only). Note that this is 
> work in progress, don't expect it to be complete.
> >
> > Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I 
> can put this document for group download?
> >
> > Regards,
> > -E.
> >
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> >> To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> I was not involved in your MIB process until now and would like to 
> >> give my comments,
> >>
> >> 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> >> "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data 
> rates of all 
> >> BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation 
> overhead and 
> >> G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> >> As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the 
> GBS of type
> >> g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> >>
> >> 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these 
> are almost 
> >> the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, there are the 
> >> EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> >> single one?
> >>
> >> 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> >>
> >> Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Adslmib mailing list
> >> Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> >>
> >>     
> 

RE: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt

Orly,
I suggest we start with GBOND-MIB only, then, when the text is available, we'd be able to discuss it and
decide if it is worth splitting into a separate RFC.

Regards,
-E. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n <at> rad.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:30
> To: Edward Beili; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; 
> narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> I was thinking of an external document in order to ensure 
> coverage of all those related modules of the 2 groups. Would 
> not it be limited if we have such in one of the module only, 
> like this GBOND-MIB?Would not it be just from the bonding 
> aspects, or could we really cover the phy and logical layer 
> too without getting out of scope? 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 05:10
> To: Orly Nicklass; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; 
> narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi
> Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> 
> Orly,
> I think a relevant "relationship to *-MIB" section in 
> GBOND-MIB would be a good place to put such a clarification.
> Alternatively we could add a new "solution applicability" section.
> 
> Regards,
> -E.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Orly Nicklass [mailto:orly_n <at> rad.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 18:11
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; 
> narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com; 
> > Menachem Dodge; Uri Shabi; Edward Beili
> > Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > 
> >  Dan,
> > 
> > Since the HUBMIB and the ADSLMIB are sharing modules for various 
> > solutions, would not it be a good idea to have a shared 
> applicability 
> > draft explaining how to handle the MIB modules of the two 
> groups for 
> > the various solutions?
> > 
> > Orly
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB <at> actelis.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 17:04
> > To: Uri Shabi; Menachem Dodge
> > Cc: adslmib <at> ietf.org; Moti Morgenstern; narendranath.nair <at> wipro.com
> > Subject: RE: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > 
> > Uri,
> > 1. You are right, current definition of ifSpeed is only correct for 
> > the Ethernet service. I'll correct it in the next revision.
> > 
> > 2. EFM-CU-MIB covers management of 2BASE-TL (G.SHDSL based) and 
> > 10PASS-TS (VDSL based) defined in IEEE 802.3ah, including both 
> > physical layer and bonding. The WG Last Call was just sent for this 
> > MIB. ITU-T
> > 998.2 takes the bonding as defined in 802.3ah but allows it 
> to be used
> 
> > on any xDSL technology. Therefore GBOND-MIB and GBOND-ETH-MIB would 
> > cover just the bonding management, leaving physical layer 
> management 
> > to corresponding xDSL LINE MIBs.
> > 
> > 3. WT-157 can be downloaded from the DSL Forum website 
> (restricted to 
> > the forum members only). Note that this is work in progress, don't 
> > expect it to be complete.
> > 
> > Menachem, is there an area on the workgroup site where I 
> can put this 
> > document for group download?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > -E.
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Uri Shabi [mailto:uri_s <at> rad.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 17:45
> > > To: adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > > Subject: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-00.txt
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > I was not involved in your MIB process until now and 
> would like to 
> > > give my comments,
> > > 
> > > 1. para 4.1.5 ifSpeed section reads the following:
> > > "For the GBS it is the sum of the current operating data
> > rates of all
> > > BCEs in the aggregation group, without the encapsulation
> > overhead and
> > > G.Bond overhead, but accounting for the Inter-Frame Gaps (IFG)"
> > > As I understand the IFG refers to Ethernet medium but the
> > GBS of type
> > > g9981&3 are not Ethernet.
> > > 
> > > 2. Looking at the G.998.2 and 802.3ah EFM bonding, these 
> are almost 
> > > the same thing. AS I understand on the MIB progress, 
> there are the 
> > > EFM-Cu and the GBOND-ETH, why to do two MIBs and not keep with a 
> > > single one?
> > > 
> > > 3. Where can I get WT-157?
> > > 
> > > Appreciate your comments, Uri.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Adslmib mailing list
> > > Adslmib <at> ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
> > > 
> > 
>