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

Dieter Beller <> Thu, 13 March 2014 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447031A0A25 for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.176
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r_IgqYgMeBdZ for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2121A09F9 for <>; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s2DFHJpV016081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:17:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (GMO) with ESMTP id s2DFH4xC023462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:17:05 +0100
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2DFH1Sl019710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:17:04 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:17:01 +0100
From: Dieter Beller <>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:17:30 -0000

Hi Ruediger,

On 13.03.2014 15:36, wrote:
Hi all,
Huub and Dieter mentioned during the CAMP session in London that ITU-T Q6 has some concerns about additional values in document.

Huub mentioned that - I asked a follow-up question regarding the exchange of power values (see below).

Gabriele mentioned the reason for adding these values and we will update the documents with explaining text. 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.
If you guys have still concerns lets discuss these points on the list.
The question I have is the following:

The draft defines LMP protocol messages (sub-objects) to convey the (current?) Output Power at the Ss
reference point and the Current Input Power at the Rs reference point from OXC1 to OLS1 and OXC2 to OLS2,
respectively. This is my interpretation. Now, I would like to understand for what purposes these power values
are exchanged.

My suggestion at the meeting was to add some explanatory text to the draft describing the application that
makes use of these values, i.e., that motivates the definition of these LMP extensions.


Best regards

CCAMP mailing list