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

Huub van Helvoort <> Sun, 16 March 2014 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9BD1A01E9 for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id inkwInLdQRQ5 for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854F21A01BE for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b57so2517279eek.21 for <>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:reply-to :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1yNbP3YeletZdY6NvkXhVW888e1FQ0RMm79Us1RytM8=; b=X7ej1PP21ctf0buEZfFXYzhNfyJUnTFCGFcxIqnM+M8mVK0HH5XP/b67xcrar2JzoL Js3b9wjBIE6lwrn22LnAs0NXIZdCLdTdF+zucdpxWgeauuC3vMIz8SAxNson69wjIkkQ MeEOqbo93l8He0FkKeopK1T+xJkaN41kNUgsYVFI0q2BVfuAB2Sj5qG6GVI4VqZVWAYs YUreu3/Kve27XVSud99TNwq9/xklXFPWiqBC7aKO8rSSdiytONBZe50jrlpWBk7UyJP3 Iq/xfpazCEyXx43QU/R/A3nSLjsMQXmUdjdOMyq8IOnIavixVqU2hCeE4QroS2S0n0UO C5lA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id c3mr19052557eeb.42.1394983081490; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from McAsterix.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id t4sm20460539eeb.29.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 16:18:00 +0100
From: Huub van Helvoort <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 15:18:12 -0000

Hallo Gert,

You wrote:

> 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.

I was not aware of the requirement to have a WG document before
being able to liaise.
In that case only direct communication between the autors and Q6
experst remains.

> Without Liaison we don't get official input from Q6 and need to
 > work with informal communication.

What will you do if Q6 experts do not support your ideas?

 > My understanding is that Q6 doesn't have an issue with CCAMP
 > working on LMP but wants to review a parameter.

My understanding is that they are concerned about using an
application code with additional parameter values. This is
in fact creating a new application code.

 > So technically we should be ready to accept this as a WG item
 > and use it as a basis for a Liaison with Q6.

You asked the same question about accepting in the meeting
I did not see much support.

My 2p,
Regards, Huub.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: 14 March 2014 15:27
> To:
> 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.
> --
> *****************************************************************
>                 请记住,你是独一无二的,就像其他每一个人一样
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list