headers
Moti Morgenstern | 9 Nov 2008 15:52

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-06.txt

Hi Dan and David,

Thank you for the comments regarding to draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-06.txt.
We, the editors, reviewed the comments and here is our response to each (Dan's comments and then David's):

Comment T1
-------------- 
Comment suggests writing specifically in the MIB module, in the DESCRIPTION clauses of the MIB tables,
what is the persistence policy relative to the objects in the table.
Response: We have a section in the document called "2.5.  Persistence" which lists all persistent objects.
If you search for each of these objects in the MIB, not all of the objects mention persistence in the
DESCRIPTION clause. This is when the persistency is relevant to ALL objects and, when that happens, the
DESCRIPTION clause of the containing table mentions: "Entries in this table MUST be maintained in a
persistent manner." So we believe the current situation is satisfactory.

Comment T2 
--------------
Comment claims that indexation by name is very resource consuming.
Response: The observation is basically correct. Despite that, we chose name indexes on purpose for ease of
use by the operator and consistency with all other xDSL MIBs. 

Comment T3 
--------------
Comment refers to rate-limiting notifications mentioned in the document.
Response: We will remove the rate limiting comment altogether because no other xDSL MIB mentions this.

Comment T4
--------------
Comment is a request to explain the Reserved bits in Xdsl2TransmissionModeType.
Response: We used reserved bits because we want the VDSL2 MIB to closely match the source document G.997.1.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
David B Harrington | 9 Nov 2008 16:11
Picon

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-06.txt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moti Morgenstern [mailto:Moti.Morgenstern <at> ecitele.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 9:53 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); David B Harrington
> Cc: MIB Doctors (E-mail); adslmib <at> ietf.org; Menachem Dodge; 
> scott.baillie <at> nec.com.au; umberto.bonollo <at> nec.com.au
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl2-06.txt
> 
> Comment T1
> -------------- 
> Comment suggests writing specifically in the MIB module, in 
> the DESCRIPTION clauses of the MIB tables, what is the 
> persistence policy relative to the objects in the table.
> Response: We have a section in the document called "2.5.  
> Persistence" which lists all persistent objects. If you 
> search for each of these objects in the MIB, not all of the 
> objects mention persistence in the DESCRIPTION clause. 

On eproblem with this approach is that MIb modules ar efrequently
distributed without the surrounding text. An operator who has only the
MIB module itself, withut all the surroundign document will not have
this information. If you are going to put important information in
only on eplace, it should be in the MIB module itself.

dbh
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane