ADSLMIB WG Minutes
47th IETF Adelaide

Mike Sneed, Dave Allan co-chairs

Meeting Convened, 3:35 pm 

Agenda Bashing

Extension MIB status
	Faye missed the deadline.
	Quite a few changes from the last draft
	Dual profiles is only open issue
	Draft to be posted as soon as the list re-opens

	Renaming the MIB
	- wish to indicate an extensions not a replacement
	Changes to adslExtTable
	- change from augment to index by ifindex
	added powerstate object
	- replaced line mode with transmission mode
	- main controversy in transmission mode objects
		atu-c capability
		atu-c actual
	- remaining issue
		dual mode alternative profile config objects not yet included in draft
both adslConfProfileExtTable and alarmConfProfileExtTable use AUGMENTS syntax. Does this need to be changed? In general used if no 1:1 mapping.
		wanted feedback from anyone using static mode, cannot find anyone
		hinging on unspecified work in the ITU. Objection incomprehensible 
given ITU has not yet considered it.

Implementation issues with RFC 2662
Claimed that vague in how profile changes are handled. Change to a profile parameter needs to propagate to all lines using the profile, which implies a reset of all lines. No guidelines as to when it is legal to change a line. Therefore there is some ambiguity.

No implementation experience in the room.

ADSL Forum Liaison
	No liaison message from the ADSL Forum.

HDSL2 MIB
Bob Rae wants to do an HDSL2 MIB. Seems to have enough people lined up to do the work. Mike presented Bobs slide.
- ADSL MIB not appropriate for HDSL2
- again different from G.SHDSL
- HDSL2 is in balloting process, will be obsoleted from g.SHDSL
- HDSL2 can have repeaters which are similarly managed.
- has 3 entities HTU-C, HTU-R, HRU
- slides to be posted to the list.
Is this a completely new MIB. Yes, not enough commonality between the MIBs.

The danger of too many MIBs is limited by the number of people to do the work.

Consensus is that there are people to do the work, and it is reasonable to add this to the charter.

Discussion of SDSL and appropriateness of WG focus on proprietary technology. Agreed that sufficient critical mass of commonality across SDSL technologies is required in order to take this on. The list is a potential mechanism.

Agreed that this group would be a location for VDSL once standards emerged (identified as imminent)

VoDSL IAD MIB
	Yu-Jen Hsiao, Anda Networks
	Gauge interest in doing a standards track MIB for IAD VoDSL services.
	Outlined basic architecture with GR303 gateway->ATM->IAD
	Configuration MIBs
	- IP address, scripts, software download
	Voice line MIBs
	- AAL2 PVC etc.

	Draft draft-jamp-ops-mib-01.txt submitted. Can be used as a baseline.
	Can be merged/cooperate with other IETF efforts (e.g. GR303 MIB).

	What next?
	Separate WG
	Mailing list:
	Subscribe@?

	Dave Perkins – is this an end-run of the standards process? AT the GR303 BOF, 
two MIBs were wanted. One for voice gateway and one for access. Why is this here instead of GR303 MIB? Dave illustrated the IAD-GR303 situation.

Yu's goal is an end-to-end provisioning system for BLES. (loop start, ground start etc.).

Dave: until I dug deeper, loop start/ground start I thought was a local to the line card function. But this has implications at the GR303 level.

Q: Did the GR303 MIB BOF overlap this (BB bearer) scenario. A: Yes.

Dave pointed out that the infrastructure between the GR303 Gtwy and the IAD has no knowledge of dial tone, busy etc.

GR303 BOF outcome, was a bunch of actions were defined as next steps and they have not completed.

Consensus is that this is not DSL specific. The chair of the GR303 BOF has not followed up (potentially a better site for this work).

To be followed up on GR303 list.
	Gr303-request@tollbridgetech.com
	Gr303@tollbridge.com 

Wrap Up