Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Gert Grammel <> Sun, 16 March 2014 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2CF1A028B for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 02:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gtexMMRMJLOt for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 02:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A021A00A6 for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 02:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:46 +0000
Received: from mail22-tx2 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57CA160109; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI;; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -24
X-BigFish: VPS-24(zz98dIc89bh15bfK1b0bI542Izz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL8275dh1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839h93fhd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h2216h22d0h2336h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch25f6h2605h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail22-tx2: domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;; ; ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(24454002)(13464003)(69234005)(189002)(199002)(74366001)(81816001)(81542001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(97336001)(97186001)(74316001)(81686001)(74876001)(83322001)(80976001)(56816005)(74662001)(90146001)(94946001)(31966008)(85852003)(83072002)(87936001)(79102001)(20776003)(63696002)(2656002)(59766001)(77982001)(4396001)(33646001)(94316002)(47976001)(50986001)(49866001)(47736001)(86362001)(93516002)(93136001)(92566001)(95416001)(46102001)(66066001)(76796001)(69226001)(77096001)(54356001)(56776001)(76576001)(54316002)(81342001)(74502001)(47446002)(80022001)(51856001)(65816001)(76482001)(53806001)(85306002)(15975445006)(87266001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB042;; FPR:FCF7E175.A8D6930D.40F1FEA3.44D6FA7B.203B4; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail22-tx2 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail22-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1394962542841189_29055; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD21040061; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:42 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.423.0; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:41 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.898.11; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:40 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.0898.005; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:40 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <>
To: "Deborah Brungard (" <>, "Lou Berger (" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
Thread-Index: Ac8+yaJXH8vwWfWRQbyQfVfsHVxr9AAx9yiAAFoRKiA=
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-forefront-prvs: 0152EBA40F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:35:56 -0000

Hi Deborah & Lou,

we go back and forth on this since quite a while. As neither the LMP nor the SNMP draft are WG documents, there is no Liaison. Without Liaison we don't get official input from Q6 and need to work with informal communication. My understanding is that Q6 doesn't have an issue with CCAMP working on LMP but wants to review a parameter. So technically we should be ready to accept this as a WG item and use it as a basis for a Liaison with Q6. Being able to refer to an official communication would really help to close the subject.

My 2c


-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
Sent: 14 March 2014 15:27
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Hallo Rüdiger,

You wrote:

> Huub and Dieter mentioned during the CAMP session in London that ITU-T
> Q6 has some concerns about additional values in document.

It was indeed I who mentioned that. During conversations with Q6 experts I noticed that they have still concerns regarding the use of an application code and adding additional parameters because that defeats the intention to define and use application codes.

My intent was to suggest that you communicate with Q6 experts either by attending Q6 meetings and submit contributions for discussion, or write a liaison from CCAMP to Q6 asking for their opinion regarding the drafts that were introduced in the CCAMP meeting.

> Gabriele mentioned the reason for adding these values and we will 
> update the documents with explaining text.

I was only the messenger, it would be better to communicate directly with Q6 experts.

> During our common meeting with ITU-T at IETF 86 Pete Anslow mentioned:
 > Transmit power may be useful, beyond
> that I cannot think of anything else you may want to set.

IETF86 is already some time ago. You could have asked in the meantime what Pete actually did mean by "may be useful".

> If you guys have still concerns lets discuss these points on the list.

Again: I am only the messenger, please talk to the Q6 experts directly. FYI Q6 is meeting in the week of March 23.

Best regards, tschüss, Huub.


CCAMP mailing list