Dear 1904 WG members,
We have received 3 comments from NexCom on our 1904.2 PAR Modification Request:
<image002.png>
Here is the existing scope we have in the PAR modification form:
This standard describes a management channel for devices used in Ethernet-based subscriber access networks. The key characteristics of the specified management channel are:
- The ability to transit MAC bridges in a single IEEE 802 MAC domain to allow remote device management;
- Extensibility to accommodate new management protocols and new types of devices;
- The ability to simultaneously send messages to multiple UMT stations using broadcast or multicast addressing.
The standard describes the message format as well as processing operations at the stations participating in the UMT protocol.
I don’t see that just expanding the abbreviations would work well. We may have the next question on whether the terms “management channel” and “management tunnel” mean the same thing or different and why both are used.
I am assuming we only want to use one term and that is “universal management tunnel”. (“Channel” can be misconstrued as some kind of side-band or out-of-band signaling used for management). So, I am going to propose a refined scope as below (changed text in red):
This standard describes a Universal Management Tunnel (UMT) for devices used in Ethernet-based subscriber access networks. The key characteristics of the specified management mechanism are:
- The ability to transit Layer 2 bridges in a single IEEE 802 Media Access Control (MAC) domain to allow remote device management;
- Extensibility to accommodate new management protocols and new types of devices;
- The ability to simultaneously send messages to multiple UMT stations using broadcast or multicast addressing.
The standard describes the message format as well as processing operations at the stations participating in the UMT protocol.
On a similar note, should we change the PAR title from
Standard for Management Channel for Ethernet-based Subscriber Access Networks
To
Standard for Universal Management Tunnel for Ethernet-based Subscriber Access Networks?
Please, reply to this thread if you have any objections, or if you would like to propose a better wording.
These changes are a bit too extensive for the chair to make on the fly. So, after we agree on the new text, I will ask the 1904 voting members to confirm the changes via an email vote.
As for the RevCom submission, should we move it to May? We can always submit earlier, if a Sponsor Ballot closes clean.
Thank you,
-Glen