Skip to main content

xDSL Multi-Pair Bonding Using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (G.Bond/TDIM) MIB
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-02-15
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2012-05-08
08 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2012-05-08
08 Benoît Claise Ballot writeup was changed
2012-04-18
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-04-17
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2012-04-17
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-04-02
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-03-29
08 Benoît Claise Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise from Dan Romascanu
2012-03-19
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-03-19
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-03-19
08 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-03-19
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-03-19
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-03-19
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-03-19
08 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2012-03-15
08 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2012-03-15
08 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-03-15
08 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-03-15
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2012-03-13
08 Dan Romascanu
updated write-up from Menachem Dodge:

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

  Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair.


  Has the Document Shepherd …
updated write-up from Menachem Dodge:

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

  Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair.


  Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?


  Yes.


  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?

          Yes. The document has been reviewed by the the WG chair.
  Comments that were raised have been taken into account.

          The document has not been reviewed by non-WG members.


  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

          No.


  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?


  No. The AD provided feedback during the development of the document.
          In addition the document has been reviewed by several MIB doctors
          and by the Security-DIR.


  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.


  No. There are no specific concerns.The Broadband Forum TR-159 document provides
          a basis for this MIB module, as for all the G.Bond MIB modules, and this
          work was solicited by the Broadband forum.This I-D has appeared in the RFP of an
          operator and at least one vendor is known to be including this module within its
          products.

          No, there is no IPR disclosure related to the document.



  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

 
         
          This document is based on the Broadband Forum specification TR-159.
         
  There is WG agreement for this document.
         
         


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No.


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  Yes, this document satisfies ID nits.

  MIB doctor review has been carried out.


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? 

  Yes.

  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?

          No.

  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? 

  No.

  If so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?

          Yes.     
          This document requests that an object identifier for gBondTdimMIB be allocated
          by IANA [1] in the MIB-2 transmission sub-tree.

  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434]. 

 

  If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  The document has been reviewed by several MIB Doctors.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  Yes.


  (1.k) Technical Summary


  This document proposes an extension to the GBOND-MIB module with a set of
        objects for managing multi-pair bonded xDSL interfaces using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (TDIM),
        defined in ITU-T recommendation G.998.3.


        Working Group Summary

        The document was reviewed
        by key members of the WG and by the MIB doctors and Security-DIR.Feedback from these
        reviews was taken into account and the I-D was updated accordingly.

        This work together with all of the other G.Bond documents is based on the guidelines set
        forward by the Broadband Forum TR-159. The Broadband Forum solicited this work and it is known
        that the G. Bond I-Ds have appeared in operator RFPs and that this G.Bond MIB module is being
        implemented in at least one vendor's products.
       
2012-03-13
08 Dan Romascanu updated write-up from Menachem Dodge
2012-03-13
08 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-03-12
08 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-03-12
08 Edward Beili New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-08.txt
2012-03-12
07 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre
2012-03-12
07 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-03-12
07 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-03-12
07 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-03-11
07 Suresh Krishnan Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan.
2012-03-09
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-03-09
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-03-07
07 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-03-07
07 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-03-15
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu Ballot has been issued
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu Ballot writeup was changed
2012-03-07
07 Dan Romascanu Created "Approve" ballot
2012-02-28
07 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-02-18
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2012-02-18
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein
2012-02-17
07 Amanda Baber
IANA has the same question about documents
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-05.txt,
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-07.txt,
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-05.txt, and
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-09.txt.

This document appears to be requesting the following transmission number …
IANA has the same question about documents
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-05.txt,
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-07.txt,
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-eth-mib-05.txt, and
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-09.txt.

This document appears to be requesting the following transmission number
from
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers
under iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.transmission (1.3.6.1.2.1.10):

Decimal Name Description Reference
------- ------------ ------------------------------- ---------
?? gBondTdimMIB ??? [RFC-to-be]

(NOTE/TRIVIA: my earlier message about draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib
incorrectly referred to "gBondTdimMIB," when that document is actually
requesting "gBondAtmMIB.")

However, this does not correspond to an existing ifType registration,
and this document does not request a new one. There are three previously
assigned ifTypes that will have the related document
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-09.txt as a reference, but their names are
"g9981," "g9982," and "g9983." Furthermore, that document (to which this
same question applies) appears to request a transmission number that
would refer to the whole group. Section 3.12 of RFC 1213 says of
transmission numbers,

"By convention, the name assigned is:

type OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { transmission number }

where 'type' is the symbolic value used for the media in the ifType
column of the ifTable object, and 'number' is the actual integer
value corresponding to the symbol."

Does the "by convention" language mean that this can be assigned without
a corresponding ifType? If so, we need the author to supply a description.

There would be an issue here, though, in that there are currently four
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond documents that appear to be requesting unique
transmission numbers, and only three related ifTypes. To register a
fourth could potentially throw off the numbering for all future
ifType/transmission number registrations, if we understand the requests
correctly.
2012-02-16
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2012-02-16
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan
2012-02-14
07 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2012-02-14
07 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (xDSL multi-pair bonding using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (G.Bond/TDIM) MIB) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the ADSL MIB WG (adslmib) to
consider the following document:
- 'xDSL multi-pair bonding using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing
  (G.Bond/TDIM) MIB'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-28. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines Management Information Base (MIB) module for
  use with network management protocols in TCP/IP based internets.
  This document proposes an extension to the GBOND-MIB module with a
  set of objects for managing multi-pair bonded xDSL interfaces using
  Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (TDIM), defined in ITU-T
  recommendation G.998.3.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2012-02-14
07 Dan Romascanu Last Call was requested
2012-02-14
07 Dan Romascanu State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup.
2012-02-14
07 Dan Romascanu Last Call text changed
2012-02-14
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2012-02-14
07 (System) Last call text was added
2012-02-14
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2012-02-09
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2012-02-09
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-07.txt
2011-11-09
07 Dan Romascanu State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation.
2011-11-09
07 Dan Romascanu State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-09-26
07 Cindy Morgan
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

  Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair.


  Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version …
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

  Menachem Dodge, Adslmib WG Chair.


  Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?


  Yes.


  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?

          Yes. The document has been reviewed by the the WG chair.
  Comments that were raised have been taken into account.

          The document has not been reviewed by non-WG members.


  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

          Only a small number of individuals in the WG participated in
          reviewing and commenting on the document.
 


  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?


  No.


  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.


  No. There are no specific concerns and there is no IPR disclosure
          related to the document.


  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

 
         
          There has been very little feedback from WG members. On the whole,
  the WG has been silent.
         


  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No.


  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  Yes, this document satisfies ID nits.

  MIB doctor review has not yet taken place.


  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? 

  Yes.

  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?

          No.

  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? 

  No.

  If so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?

          Yes.     
          This document requests that an object identifier for gBondTdimMIB be allocated
          by IANA [1] in the MIB-2 transmission sub-tree.

  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434]. 

   




  If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  MIB Doctor Review is required.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  Yes.


  (1.k) Technical Summary


  This document proposes an extension to the GBOND-MIB module with a set of
        objects for managing multi-pair bonded xDSL interfaces using Time-Division Inverse Multiplexing (TDIM),
        defined in ITU-T recommendation G.998.3.


        Working Group Summary

        The WG process was smooth with no real controversies.


        Document Quality


        No information is available about implementations.
2011-09-26
07 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-09-26
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Menachem Dodge (Menachem.Dodge@ecitele.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2011-05-26
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-06.txt
2011-03-14
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-05.txt
2010-11-27
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-04.txt
2010-05-31
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-03.txt
2010-02-18
07 (System) Document has expired
2009-08-17
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-02.txt
2007-11-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-01.txt
2007-05-03
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-tdim-mib-00.txt