[EFM] FWD: RE: 802.3ah (EFM) MIB
Forwarded from Ed Beili. The message bounced
because it quoted Dan's original posting, which
contained the taboo word "$ub$cribe".
-------- Original Message --------
From: Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com>
To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, hubmib@ietf.org
Cc: "Bemmel, Vincent" <vincent.bemmel@Alloptic.com>,
Menachem.Dodge@infineon.com, Matt Squire <MSquire@HatterasNetworks.com>,
Yonghong Ren <ren@appiancom.com>,
John Messenger
<jmessenger@advaoptical.com>,
Ariel Maislos <ariel.maislos@passave.com>,
Glen Kramer <glen.kramer@teknovus.com>,
Sreenivas Kottapalli
<sreeni@Centillium.com>,
Ali Abaye <Ali@Centillium.com>, Masoud Khansari
<masoud@Centillium.com>,
Shuzo Tomita <shuzo@ansl.ntt.co.jp>, stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org,
Kumaran Veerayah <KVeerayah@ntu.edu.sg>, Dolors Sala <dolors@ieee.org>,
"Bert Wijnen (E-mail)"
<bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: RE: 802.3ah (EFM) MIB
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:27:15 +0300
Dan,
A few thoughts, just to start the discussion.
>- scope of the work - MIBs only, anything else ??
I think that MIBs is more than enough for now.
>- relationship with the IEEE 802.3 standards - is the current text OK?
Looks like July's draft is going to be stable enough for the MIB work to be
started.
>- deliverables - one document, one document per EFM flavor, other
combinations
My personal preferences is one doc per flavor, i.e. EPON MIB, EFMCu MIB.
This way we'll be able to progress quicker (possibly at a cost of
consistency). We still may decide to converge at a later stage.
>- schedules
Submit RFC on Jul 2004.
Regards,
-E.