Skip to main content

Managed Objects of Ethernet Passive Optical Networks (EPON)
RFC 4837

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from bwijnen@lucent.com, dromasca@avaya.comlior.khermosh@passave.com to (None)
2007-07-16
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2007-07-16
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4837' added by Amy Vezza
2007-07-10
06 (System) RFC published
2007-01-23
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-01-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-01-22
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-01-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2006-12-12
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-12-04
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-12-01
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30
2006-11-30
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-11-30
06 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2006-11-30
06 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner
2006-11-30
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2006-11-29
06 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-11-29
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler.
2006-11-29
06 Dan Romascanu State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-29
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2006-11-28
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2006-11-28
06 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Word-wrapping makes some of the tables difficult to read. The editors
  might want to think about a different way to present this …
[Ballot comment]
Word-wrapping makes some of the tables difficult to read. The editors
  might want to think about a different way to present this information.


Section 5., paragraph 23:
>    dot3MpcpSyncTime OBJECT-TYPE
>        SYNTAX  Unsigned32
>        UNITS      "TQ (16nsec)"
>        MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>        STATUS  current
>        DESCRIPTION
>                "An object that reports the 'sync lock time' of the
>                OLT receiver in increments of Time Quanta (TQ)-16ns
>                as defined in [802.3ah] 60,64,65. The value returned
>                shall be (sync lock time ns)/16. If this value exceeds
>                (2^32-1) the value (2^32-1) shall be returned.
>                This object is applicable for an OLT, with the same
>                value for all virtual interfaces, and for an ONU."
>        REFERENCE  "[802.3ah], 64.3.3.2."
>      ::= { dot3MpcpControlEntry 4 }

  If the value can exceed what can be represented in 32 bits, wouldn't a
  64-bit value make sense, both here and for objects below that are
  similarly capped? (I'm no expert in this technology, so there may well
  be a good reason for why this choice was made.)


Section 8., paragraph 17:
>    SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security.
>    Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec),

  Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/
2006-11-28
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2006-11-28
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-11-28
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2006-11-27
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-11-27
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2006-11-27
06 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2006-11-27
06 Ted Hardie
[Ballot comment]
Nit:

The document says:


  The Optical Line Terminal (OLT) is the server unit of the network,
  located at the Central Office …
[Ballot comment]
Nit:

The document says:


  The Optical Line Terminal (OLT) is the server unit of the network,
  located at the Central Office (CO).

  The Optical Network Unit (ONU) is the client unit of the network,
  located at the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).

This is a non-blocking comment, but I do wish to note that I find the
"located in" clauses above somewhat strange.  If the services which
make a CO are required by the OLT in some way, the document doesn't
note it in a way that was findable by me; similarly, that operation
of this doesn't seem to require that ONU be in CPE--presumably it
can be anywhere the ONU functaionality is needed.  The other
diagrams and descriptions of functionality seem fairly general.
2006-11-27
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-11-23
06 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-11-23
06 Dan Romascanu Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-11-30 by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-21
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2006-11-21
06 Dan Romascanu Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-21
06 Dan Romascanu Created "Approve" ballot
2006-11-21
06 Dan Romascanu
The WG chair and PROTO shepherd asked for the document to be submitted to IESG approval.

Revised PROTO write-up:

---------

Dan (and HUBMIB WG members). …
The WG chair and PROTO shepherd asked for the document to be submitted to IESG approval.

Revised PROTO write-up:

---------

Dan (and HUBMIB WG members).

This document is now ready to go onto the IESG agenda for consideration as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Thanks to Lior for the latest revision(s) which have addressed all the IETF Last Call comments and other comments that came in as well.

Bert

------- PROTO SHEPEHRD writeup:


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  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?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

Document did have WG review (Dan Romascanu, CM Heard, Matt Squire, Edward Beili and Bert Wijnen), MIB doctor review (David Perkins), IETF Last Call review. These resulted in a few new revisions.
IEEE 802.3 WG (specificall 802.3ah) has also reviewed and commented during the development of this document.
Document is in good shape now and has had enough review.

  (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.

There was/is some concern about quality of English. However, a call for volunteers to do a check on that has not resulted in a reviewer for that specific aspect. The author did do another pass, and it improved to a level that AD and WG chair find good enough.
We assume the RFC-Editor will correct any remaining serious issues.

  (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?

The WG is does not have too many active participants, but there is consensus and support from the active participants.

  (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?

Nov 21st, 2006: idnits 1.118

tmp/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-06.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
   
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

    the boilerplate looks good.

    No nits found.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

  Experimental warnings:
    None.

    No nits found.

MIB doctor review was done by David Perkins.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

I see that [RFC2119] is listed under informative references.
It should be moved to the normative references section.

I also see that (now that rfc3636bis document has been approved by IESG), we might remove citation/refrence to rfc3636 itsels altogether and just cite/reference the new-rfc3636bis-to-be.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document?  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 suggested a
        reasonable name for the new registry?  See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  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?

yes

  (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)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

    This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
    (MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP based
    Internets.  In particular, it defines objects for managing interfaces
    that conform to the Ethernet Passive Optical Networks (EPON) standard
    as defined in the IEEE Std 802.3ah-2004, which are extended
    capabilities to the Ethernet like interfaces.

  Working Group Summary
    The working Group has consensus to publish this document as a
    Proposed Standard RFC.

  Document Quality
    The document has been reviewed by various WG members (and chairs)
    of the HUBMIB WG. IEEE802.3ah did various reviews and comments
    throughout the development of this document.
    MIB Doctor review was done by David Perkins.
    IETF Last Call also resulted in some comments.
    All review comments have been addressed.
    We are not aware of any current implementations.

  Personnel
    Bert Wijnen (WG chair of hubmib) is the PROTO SHEPHERD.
    Dan ROmascanu is the Responsible Area Director.

  Possible notes to RFC-Editor

    Page 99, pls move reference

      [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    from the informative to the normative section.


    Possibly replace all citations/references to rfc3636 and replace them
    with the new rfc3636bis-to-be (which has been approved by IESG already,
    and which obsoletes RFC3636).

Bert Wijnen
HUBMIB WG chair
2006-11-15
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2006-11-15
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-06.txt
2006-11-15
06 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a single mib-2
number for DOT2-EPON-MIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at …
IANA Last call Comment:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a single mib-2
number for DOT2-EPON-MIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at the following location:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

The IANA understands this is the only IANA Action required for this document.
2006-11-08
06 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2006-11-08
06 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2006-11-07
06 Dan Romascanu State Changes to Waiting for Writeup::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-07
06 Dan Romascanu State Change Notice email list have been change to bwijnen@lucent.com; dromasca@avaya.comlior.khermosh@passave.com from bwijnen@lucent.com; dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com
2006-11-02
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2006-10-29
06 Dan Romascanu
GenART review by Gonzallo Camarillo

Draft: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-05.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo  Review Date: 26 October 2006 IETF LC Date: 19 October 2006


Summary:

This draft is …
GenART review by Gonzallo Camarillo

Draft: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-05.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo  Review Date: 26 October 2006 IETF LC Date: 19 October 2006


Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.


Comments:

Acronyms should also be expanded in the title of the draft.

Generally, abstracts should not have references so that they could be distributed independently of the main document. The author may want to consider removing all references from the abstract.
2006-10-20
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2006-10-19
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2006-10-19
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2006-10-19
06 Dan Romascanu Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu
2006-10-19
06 Dan Romascanu State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Dan Romascanu
2006-10-19
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-10-19
06 (System) Last call text was added
2006-10-19
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-10-17
06 Dan Romascanu State Change Notice email list have been change to bwijnen@lucent.com; dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com from bwijnen@lucnet.com; dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com
2006-10-17
06 Dan Romascanu [Note]: 'Bert Wijnen is the PROTO shepherd' added by Dan Romascanu
2006-10-17
06 Dan Romascanu State Change Notice email list have been change to bwijnen@lucnet.com; dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com from dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com
2006-10-17
06 Dan Romascanu Shepherding AD has been changed to Dan Romascanu from David Kessens
2006-07-24
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-05.txt
2006-04-25
06 David Kessens Shepherding AD has been changed to David Kessens from Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
06 Bert Wijnen State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen
2006-03-08
06 Bert Wijnen Waiting for WG to review; MIB Doctor to re-review/check and WG chair to tell me doc is back on my plate.
2006-03-08
06 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2006-03-08 from 2005-11-01
2006-02-13
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2006-02-13
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-04.txt
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Bert Wijnen
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen MIB Doctor review posted to HUBMIB WG list, see

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hubmib/current/msg00801.html
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen
Mmm...

I should have updated the status to AD-Review substate
External-Party  (namely MIB Doctor Review).

It actually went into MIB Doctor Review on Aug 24, …
Mmm...

I should have updated the status to AD-Review substate
External-Party  (namely MIB Doctor Review).

It actually went into MIB Doctor Review on Aug 24, and it toke
somehwat (quite a bit) longer than normal.
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen State Change Notice email list have been change to dromasca@avaya.com; dperkins@dsperkins.com; lior.khermosh@passave.com from dromasca@avaya.com
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen Status date has been changed to 2005-11-01 from
2005-11-01
06 Bert Wijnen State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bert Wijnen
2005-08-23
06 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2005-03-11
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-03.txt
2004-09-29
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-02.txt
2004-05-12
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-01.txt
2004-01-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-00.txt