COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW · M. Jackson (Virata) is the A&T WG Chair. B. Dugerdil (Motorola) is the Vice-Chair. The A&T WG presentation to the closing plenary is contained in

July 23, 2001 Vol. 12.27 Copyright © CSR 2001 1

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS

REVIEW

Volume 12, Number 27 July 23, 2001

REPORT OF DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETINGJUNE 18 – 22, 2001, OSLO, NORWAY

The following report represents the view of the reporterand is not the official, authorized minutes of the meeting.

DSL Forum Technical Committee Meeting, June 18 – 22, 2001, Oslo, Norway...............................3Architecture and Transport (A&T) Working Group...................................................................3

Joint Architecture/Emerging DSLs.......................................................................................3WT-053 v.4, Protocols at the U Interface for Accessing Data Networks Using ATM/DSL.3Next Steps............................................................................................................................4

Transport Sub-Working Group..................................................................................................4WT-049, ATM Transport over ADSL (Joint with VoDSL WG)..........................................4

VoDSL (Voice over DSL) Working Group................................................................................5ATM Forum Liaison.............................................................................................................5WT-043 v.8, TR-039 Annex B, Requirements for Voice Over DSL Access Facilities to

Multi-Service Broadband Networks (MBN).............................................................6WT-061, Channelized VoDSL (CVoDSL)...........................................................................6WT-056, VoDSL Management Architecture and Requirements...........................................6Joint VoDSL/Testing & Interoperability Meeting.................................................................7WT-066 v.1, VoDSL Interoperability Test Plan....................................................................7

Operations & Network Management Working Group...............................................................7Loop Management Systems..................................................................................................8DSL Everywhere...................................................................................................................8WT-042, ADSL Service MIB...............................................................................................9WT-046, CORBA Specification for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface........................................9WT-063 Revision 2, DSL Service Flow-Through Fulfillment Management Interface..........9Joint DSL Forum/T1M1 tML/XML-based DSL Service Provisioning Standard................10Service Assurance...............................................................................................................11Joint O&NM/T&I Meeting................................................................................................11

CPE Auto-Configuration Sub-Working Group........................................................................11Summary of the May 2001 (Boston) Interim Meeting........................................................12WT-059, Auto-Configuration of Basic Internet Services....................................................14WT-060, Framework for Auto-Configuration.....................................................................14WT-064, Service Layer Auto-Configuration using SNMP.................................................14WT-065, Configuration Information for CPE Auto-Configuration.....................................15Liaisons..............................................................................................................................15Next Steps..........................................................................................................................15

Testing & Interoperability (T&I) Working Group...................................................................15Liaison with TR-41.9..........................................................................................................16Test Plans...........................................................................................................................16

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW

2 Vol. 12.27 Copyright © CSR 2001 July 23, 2001

WT-051, ADSL Dynamic Interoperability Testing.............................................................16WT-062 (v.2/v.3), ADSL Interoperability Test Plan...........................................................16G.992.1 ADSL Physical Layer Interoperability Test Plan (PD-002)..................................24Joint Session with TIA TR-30.3.........................................................................................24Joint Session with Architecture & Transport......................................................................25Outgoing Liaisons..............................................................................................................26

G8 Interoperability Group........................................................................................................26Joint G8 Session with the Testing & Interoperability Working Group: G8 Independent

Test Lab (ITL) Process...........................................................................................26Emerging DSLs Study Group..................................................................................................27

FS-VDSL Work Plan.........................................................................................................27WT-047, Aspects of VDSL Evolution................................................................................28Joint Meeting with Testing & Interoperability....................................................................28

Marketing.................................................................................................................................28Trade Shows and Industry Events (Joint with T&I WG)....................................................28Deployment Council Update...............................................................................................30Public Relations Update......................................................................................................30Mindshare Europe Campaign.............................................................................................30Ambassador Committee Update..........................................................................................31Summit/Best Practices Update............................................................................................31G.shdsl Initial Meeting Recap.............................................................................................31

DSL Forum Meeting Roster, June 18 – 22, 2001, Oslo, Norway..............................................32Acronym Definitions................................................................................................................37Communications Standards Review Copyright Policy..............................................................40

CSR’s Fully Searchable CDs

CSR CDs are indexed for machine searching (Adobe Acrobat). They arevery useful for researching technical issues as well as for prior-art searches.Your company’s patent or legal departments may also find these CDs useful.

Quarterly CDs : 3 months of CSR reports on each CD, in an annual subscription$695 to non-subscribers but only $200 as an add-on to current subscribers

Annual CDs: 12 months of CSR reports on a CD for each calendar year 1990 to present$695 to non-subscribers, $200 to current subscribers

First Decade CD: all CSR reports from 1990 through 1999 on one CD$2,000 to non-subscribers; subscribers please take a $200 discount for each year ofsubscription during 1990 – 1999



REPORT OF DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING,JUNE 18 – 22, 2001, OSLO, NORWAY

G. Young (AdEvia Limited) is the DSL Forum Technical Committee Chair. F. Van der Putten(Alcatel) is the Vice Chair. The DSL Forum website address is: <http://www.adsl.com>.DSLForum01-142 contains the plenary minutes of the DSL Forum March 2001 Vancouvermeeting.

The upcoming DSL Forum meetings are scheduled as follows:

• August 27-31, New Orleans, Louisiana• December 3-7, Munich, Germany• March 4-8, Rome, Italy

Architecture and Transport (A&T) Working Group

M. Jackson (Virata) is the A&T WG Chair. B. Dugerdil (Motorola) is the Vice-Chair. The A&TWG presentation to the closing plenary is contained in DSLForum01-230.

Joint Architecture/Emerging DSLs

DSLForum01-159 (J. Lee, Nokia) discusses a method for carrying data packets over VDSL (PoV)without using AAL5 over a VDSL link. Currently, there are several options for PoV. One option isbased on ATM transport mechanism by using AAL5. Current ADSL-based networks also carry IPpackets through ATM cells by using AAL5. But the use of ATM incurs additional complexity dueto required SAR functions and inefficiency due to high overhead of ATM cells.

A transport method without using the ATM layer is possible. In particular, PPP is used toencapsulate IP packets, which in turn are encapsulated into a frame, possibly based on HDLC (SeeV. Oksman, “G.vdsl: Encapsulation proposal for transport of packets over VDSL [PoV], ITU-TSG15/Q4 CF-057, Clearwater, Florida, January 2001). DSLForum01-159 provides the protocolstacks required for such a method, and discusses one possible encapsulation method and therationale behind using the alternate method without the ATM layer. Noting that proposals for PoVhave been submitted to the ITU-T, and having shown that there are some good reasons for packet-based transport without using AAL5, DSLForum01-159 recommends that the A&T WG initiatework on defining effective methods of packet-based transport over the VDSL link.

Further discussion was deferred to the August DSL Forum meeting in New Orleans.

WT-053 v.4, Protocols at the U Interface for Accessing Data Networks UsingATM/DSL

WT-053, Protocols at the U Interface for Accessing Data Networks Using ATM/DSL, describesprotocols that are commonly used or are expected to be commonly used by end-users to access datanetworks across an ATM over DSL connection. The protocols identified are:

• PPP over ATM (PPP/AAL5/ATM/DSL)• IP over Ethernet (IP/Ethernet/AAL5/ATM/DSL)• PPP over Ethernet (PPP/PPPoE/Ethernet/AAL5/ATM/DSL)• IP/AAL5/ATM/DSL, L2TP/AAL5/ATM/DSL

DSLForum01-231 is a liaison to the IETF informing of the development of WT-053. Noting theexpiration of the IETF Internet draft describing the use of L2TP over AAL5 (draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2tp-



atm-01.txt), the Forum informs that they had intended to include this protocol in theirRecommendation. The Forum finds value in L2TP over AAL5 and a key motivation is to documenta standards track protocol for carrying multiple PPP session over a single VC. Currently thisForum Recommendation does not support L2TP over AAL5, but the Forum would like to considera revision when L2TP over AAL5 exists as a standard. DSL Forum recommends that the IETF re-engage this work and keep the Forum informed of its progress.

The following straw ballots voting to Approve WT-053 v.4 (with no comments) were received:

• DSLForum01-146, from Virata• DSLForum01-147, from Vitria• DSLForum01-156, from General Bandwidth• DSLForum01-169, from Deutsche Telekom• DSLForum01-199, from EarthLink

DSLForum01-187 contains Fujitsu’s straw ballot vote for WT-053; Fujitsu voted to approve WT-053v4 with comments. Fujitsu suggests some additional wording for the paragraph entitled“Multi-Protocol Support” in section 3.2.1.3 to expand the description of LLC / VC multiplexing,which is a common feature of all listed protocol stacks.

WT-053 was sent to letter ballot. References to L2TPoA were removed.

Next Steps

• Contributions are required to progress:– WT-054, Service models and requirements for multimedia over DSL– WT-057 Requirements for SVC deployment over ATM/DSL networks

• Contributions are sought on QoS extensions to current TRs/usage: e.g., PPPoA and PPPoE• Joint session with Emerging DSLs on migration to “Next Generation Networks” is nedded.

Transport Sub-Working Group

R. Gade (ECI Telecom) is the TSWG Chair. The TSWG summary presentation is contained inDSLForum01-230.

WT-049, ATM Transport over ADSL (Joint with VoDSL WG)

WT-049, ATM Transport over ADSL, addresses implementation aspects specific to the transport ofAsynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) traffic over Access Networks based on Asymmetric DigitalSubscriber Line (ADSL) technology. This report is a specification for the transport of ATM overADSL that is consistent with the ADSL PHY Recommendations (ANSI T1.413, ITU-T G.992.1(G.dmt), and ITU-T G.992.2 (G.lite). T1.413 and G.992.1 specifies dual latency mode as optionaland G.992.2 specifies single latency mode in the interleaved path only. This specification providesdescriptions of the Access Node (AN) and Broadband Network-Termination (B-NT) functions andis an update to TR-017 with recent developments from the ATM Forum and other SDOs.

The following straw ballot votes to Approve WT-049 v.5 (with no comments) were received:

• DSLForum01-145, from Virata• DSLForum01-158, from General Bandwidth• DSLForum01-162, from ECI Telecom• DSLForum01-168, from Deutsche Telekom• DSLForum01-198, from EarthLink



The following straw ballot votes to Approve WT-049 v.5, with comments, were received:

• DSLForum01-176, from Covad• DSLForum01-192, from Fujitsu• DSLForum01-206, from Alcatel

All comments were addressed and resolution reached by TSWG consensus. It was agreed to moveWT-049 to letter ballot after editing. One objection to moving WT-049 to letter ballot was noted.

VoDSL (Voice over DSL) Working Group

G. Wetzel (Covad) is the VoDSL WG Chair; B. Wiseman (Texas Instruments) is the Vice-Chair.The presentation of the VoDSL WG to the closing plenary is contained in DSLForum01-230.

DSLForum01-171 (L. Haster, Ericsson) shows where updates/improvements in TR-039 are neededto support adaptive multirate (AMR) coding defined in the latest ITU-T Recommendation I.366.2,AAL Type 2 service specific convergence sublayer for narrow-band services. The main purpose ofthis update is to add the AMR coding that offers the advantages of coding efficiency, DTMFtransparency and without charge. This was added to the living list for the next TR revision.

ATM Forum Liaison

DSLForum01-175 is a liaison from the ATM Forum; it contains a notice of their April meetingheld in Amsterdam, and copies of the most recent versions of the following documents they areworking on related to loop emulation service using AAL2:

• btd-vmoa-lesh248-01.01, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 H.248 Signaling AddendumSpecification”

• str-vmoa-lesft-01.00, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 File Transfer Addendum Specification”• btd-vmoa-lespri-01.00, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 Primary Rate ISDN Addendum

Specification”• btd-vmoa-lespics-01.00, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 Protocol Implementation Conformance

Statement (PICS) Proforma Specification”• str-vmoa-lesmib-01.01, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 CP-IWF MIB Addendum

Specification”• Revision 1 to LES Phase 1. btd-vmoa-les-02.00, “Loop Emulation using AAL2 Revision 1”

The ATM Forum Control Signaling Working Group began work on enhancements to signalingmessages used for SPVC set up. These enhancements would allow provisioning of the IME (ILMIManagement Entity) via information carried in the signaling messages setting up the SPVC, in anetwork element supporting ILMI auto-configuration of PVCs (as described in ATMForumdocuments af-nm-0122.000 and fb-nm-0165.000). The DSL Forum liaison on this topic wasreceived late in the meeting but provided valuable input. The ATM Forum did not have time toconsider the DSL Forum liaison, but will consider it further at their next meeting in July 2001.

DSLForum01-186 (L. Haster, Ericsson) adds the ISDN-PRA access to be used over BLES in asimilar way as already existing PSTN and ISDN-BA. A baseline text for LES using AAL2 –ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI) [BTD-VMOA-LESPRI-01.00] was created at the last ATMForum meeting in Amsterdam. This contribution adds to that functionality. Only V5.2 (G.965[03/01] V5.2 interface [based on 2048 kbit/s] for the support of access network) is included as theservice node interface (SNI) since the GR-303 does not have the ISDN-PRA/PRI capability. To



work around this, the V5.2 interface standard could be enhanced to support 1.5 Mbit/s as well.This was proposed some years ago in the ITU-T.

WT-043 v.8, TR-039 Annex B, Requirements for Voice Over DSL Access Facilitiesto Multi-Service Broadband Networks (MBN)

WT-043 v.8, TR-039 Annex B, Requirements for Voice Over DSL Access Facilities to Multi-Service Broadband Networks (MBN), defines the voice service bearer channel requirements fordelivering POTS or ISDN equivalent telephony service for an endpoint attached to a packetbroadband network over a DSL. Calls to or from the endpoint are dynamically established on aper-call basis using session control that is independent of the bearer services. Annex B supportsthe Media Gateway Control Function; device control is provided using H.248.

DSLForum01-172 is WT-043 v.8; it was edited at this meeting. If no further contributions arereceived, WT-043 is expected to go to straw ballot at the next meeting.

WT-061, Channelized VoDSL (CVoDSL)

ADSL standards including ANSI T1.413-1998 and ITU-T G.99x define transport of data in twodifferent formats, ATM or STM transport, as independent methods of using ADSL physical layerframing. However, the potential for transporting both ATM and STM data simultaneously ispresented and left for future work. Next generation ADSL standards (G.dmt.bis and G.lite.bis) andG.shdsl (G.991.2) are discussing this area. Annex C to VoDSL TR-039 (WT-061) supports thedual transport of STM and ATM framed data simultaneously over the DSL physical layer. Thismethod is termed “Channelized Voice over DSL” (CVoDSL) to distinguish it from other VoDSLtransport methods such as Broadband Loop Emulation Service (BLES) and Multi-serviceBroadband Network (MBN).

DSLForum01-185 (L. Haster, Ericsson) presents comments on WT-061, Channelized voice overADSL. Among a number of suggested changes, DSLForum01-185 recommends separating thedifferent transportation formats from each other and keeping them in separate TRs, VoDSL in theexisting TR-039 and a new TR for CVoDSL. VoDSL is by definition ATM-based and CVoDSLis STM-based.

DSLForum01-195 (B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; D. Benini, Aware; R. Kroninger, ADC)addresses WT-061 issues replacing agreements from PD-001 with integrated text solutions. Inaddition, it proposes new text sections for alignment between the CVoDSL working text with TR-039 and ITU-T G.voice work. To assist the editor, it suggests modifications in the form of editorialand replacement text for WT-061 v.1.

WT-056, VoDSL Management Architecture and Requirements

The DSL Forum Voice over DSL Broadband Loop Emulation Services (BLES) and the ATMForum Loop Emulation Service (LES) recommendations specify a method of transporting“packetized” voice over DSL circuits. This has gained support in the industry. Providing goodnetwork management would speed up the acceptance of the LES specification. WT-056 proposesthe architecture and requirements for management of the central office interworking function device(CO-IWF). The actual MIB definition is being developed in the ATM Forum, as additions to theLES specifications.

No contributions to WT-056 were received at this meeting. This work may be suspended if nocontributions are brought to the next meeting to progress it.



Joint VoDSL/Testing & Interoperability Meeting

P. Drew, MetaSwitch, representing the OpenVoB presented the test plans used for the OpenVoBCallFests™.

DSLForum01-178 (J. Chou, Intel, Editor) is the OpenVoB D1 Model Implementation Guide andTest Plan (VoDSL GR-303 LES-CAS Interoperability Test); it is based on the ATM Forum’sLoop Emulation Services specification (af-vmoa-0145.000, June 2000). This test plan has beensuccessfully executed in two OpenVoB CallFest events to test the vendor-to-vendor interoperabilitybetween IAD and Voice Gateway.

DSLForum01-119 is the completed liaison to the OpenVoB concerning the progress on the draftGR-303 LES-CAS implementation guide for VoDSL; it requests information on the results of theMay OpenVoB CallFests, as well as a copy of OpenVoB’s document, “Implementing StandardsBased, Phone-to-Phone Interoperability.” (This liaison appears in the report of the DSL ForumMarch meeting attached to DSLForum01-106.)

A contribution expected at this meeting on latency testing for VoDSL was not received. A call wasmade for contributions on testing both CAS and CCS aspects of VoDSL.

WT-066 v.1, VoDSL Interoperability Test Plan

An initial draft of the new WT-066, VoDSL Interoperability Test Plan (P. Drew, MetaSwitch; J.Chou, Intel, Editors), was created, based on DSLForum01-178. This document describesinteroperability test cases required for VoDSL reference systems consisting of voice gateways andIADs complying with TR-039 Annex A. This test plan is intended to cover all the supportedprotocol combinations between IWFs as specified by af-vmoa-0145. It will eventually become aWT for TR-039.

Section 6 (Implementation guidelines) is the same as it was for the March Vancouver meeting (itpicks parts of ATM Forum specification). Section 7 is new (reviewed gateways andconfigurations), both for voice on ADSL and SDSL. Table 1 was modified to replace theNortel/Lucent/Alcatel ATM switch with the Cisco switch. The simulator provides caller ID. Thesimulator can't do V.90 yet (V.34 is much easier). The difference between male and femaleinterfaces was discussed. There was some discussion about having class 5 switches available fornext CallFest. So far, codec testing has only been conducted for G.711; more is planned forSeptember.

DSLForum01-239 is a liaison to the OpenVoB regarding DSL testing and interoperability. Itinforms (and includes a copy) of the first version of WT-066. The Forum affirms its interest in acontinued collaboration with OpenVoB on VoDSL. The Forum also requests a copy of theOpenVoB document, “OpenVoB Voice Over Broadband: Implementing Standards Based, Phone-to-Phone Interoperability.” The DSL Forum believes that the tests presented in this document areNorth American-centric, and would like to see the document include European and Asia/Pacificaspects as well.

Operations & Network Management Working Group

G. Bathrick (Nokia) is the O&NM WG Chair; P. Adams (British Telecom) is the Vice-Chair.DSLForum01-152 contains the minutes of the O&NM WG March meeting in Vancouver.



Loop Management Systems

O&NM WG reviewed DSLForum01-067 (LMS Focus Group), the working text providing thebasic definition, technical attributes, and various applications for LMS. It was agreed to publish itas a white paper, after review by Marketing.

DSL Everywhere

DSLForum01-114 is a white paper which provides a survey of methods for extending DSLavailability; it was handed over to Marketing.

DSLForum01-173 (T. Starr, SBC) is a slide presentation on DSL. It outlines the followingmethods to expand DSL’s reach: improved loop qualification, digital loop carrier solutions, overlaysolutions (RAM), repeaters and loop extenders, and other DSL technologies.

In the area of improved loop qualification, new CO-based line testers are becoming available; this iscurrently under consideration by SBC. The old way of loop qualification is dependent on estimatesbased on loop records. Inaccuracies resulted in both false negatives (would have worked, but didnot qualify) and false positives (frustrated customers, expensive for service providers). The newway is based on automated measurement of loops from a CO. Greater accuracy permits morequalified loops and fewer troubles.

The next generation digital loop carrier (SBC’s Project Pronto) enables reduced loop lengths,which allows for service to remote customers and higher data rates (up to 2500 kbit/s beyond 12kft). RAM serves 8 to 24 DSLs, typically located in or near an existing digital loop carrier remoteterminal; additional trunks to the CO are shared by the DSLs. This is used in some regions,generally not in SBC territory.

DSL repeater technology is becoming available; SBC has not decided on its use. A DSL repeater ata mid-span location nearly doubles loop reach by amplifying the DSL signal. Labor to install therepeater can be expensive. Loading coils must be removed. Care is needed to assure spectralcompatibility.

ADSL line extender technology is becoming available; SBC has not decided on its use. No mid-span ADSL extender technology is available. ALE units in the CO and at customer NID convertstandard ADSL to more robust SHDSL transmission format. This enables greater loop reach forrates below 800 kbit/s. It tolerates bridged taps and loop noise, and eliminates effects of insidewire. Customer-end units are powered via line.

Other DSL technologies include:

• Improved ADSL: standards committees are developing improved ADSL with greaterperformance and robustness

• SHDSL: greater loop reach and bit-rates than SDSL, and improved spectral compatibility• Dual-loop SHDSL for even greater performance, e.g., 384 kbit/s service for typical 25 kft loop

Forthcoming SBC developments include new ADSL service bit-rates that are being considered tosupport new applications, multi-PC home networking using HomePNA and wireless LAN, andenhanced communications security.



WT-042, ADSL Service MIB

WT-042, ADSL Service MIB, specifies an NMS/EMS interface for flow-through provisioning ofADSL customers as well as fault management. Flow-through provisioning helps service providersachieve more efficient customer service.

DSLForum01-207 (Inovia Telecom; G. Karmous-Edwards, Network Management Technology)provides a compliance matrix for WT-042 EMS/NMS interfaces based on TR-030. TR-030documents the set of functional requirements for an EMS/NMS interface. Compliance with TR-030 was reviewed; a simplified object model is outstanding.

WT-046, CORBA Specification for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface

WT-046, CORBA Specification for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface, passed letter ballot; it is now TR-041. This Technical Report defines the first set of several information flows that enable automationof the DSL service business-to-business interfaces between various business entities involved inproviding DSL service.

DSLForum01-157 contains Siemens comments for WT-046 v.5.

WT-063 Revision 2, DSL Service Flow-Through Fulfillment Management Interface

WT-063, DSL Service Flow-Through Fulfillment Management Interface, identifies the dataelements included in the information flows defined in TR-038. The information flows defined inTR-038 enable automation of the business-to-business interfaces between various operationalentities involved in providing DSL service.

During this meeting it was agreed to move WT-063 to straw ballot following updates that will moveit to Revision 3. Depending on feedback received from member companies prior to the nextmeeting (August 27-30), this protocol-independent specification could be approved as a DSLForum Technical Report as early as December 2001.

DSLForum01-223 (Y. Choi, Broadxent; K. Johnson, e-Site) suggests one possible modelingoptimization approach for WT-063 v.1. The approach is based on the abstraction of messages andavoidance of data redundancy caused by repetitive usage of attributes. It enables easy clarificationof involved management entities and the message exchange sequences for each possible scenario inthe typical DSL service supply chain.

DSLForum01-238 is a liaison to the Ordering & Billing Forum providing information on theprogress of WT-063, and including the latest copy of the work-in-progress document for theirreview.

DSLForum01-249 is a liaison to the TeleManagement Forum providing them a copy of WT-063,Revision 2.

DSLForum01-250 is a liaison informing that the following six documents from theTeleManagement Forum, in response to a previous liaison from the DSL Forum, are available onthe DSL Forum site:

• TMF 512, World Ordering business Agreement; SP to SP Ordering Information; Carrier Pre-Selection; WOT Member Evaluation Version 1.0

• WOT BA v.1.1f, TMF 512, WOT Member Evaluation Version 1.01



• TMF 603, World Ordering Information Agreement (formerly SP to SP ordering); MemberEvaluation Version 10.0b

• TMF 805, World Ordering Carrier Pre-Selection Interface Implementation Specification,Member Evaluation Version 1.0

• TMF 824, World Ordering Exchange DSL Interface Implementation Specification, DraftVersion 0.1

• TMF 831 WOT DSL IIS v.1.0, World Ordering B2B Exchange – DSL Catalyst InterfaceImplementation Specification; Draft Member Evaluation Version 0.11.0

Joint DSL Forum/T1M1 tML/XML-based DSL Service Provisioning Standard

DSLForum01-197 is a liaison from T1M1 informing that the T1M1.5 Management Services (MS)Sub-working Group and the T1M1 tML Ad Hoc Group met on May 15, 2001 to review theForum’s request concerning the proposed DSL Forum/T1M1 collaboration on a tML(telecommunications Markup Language) / XML DSL service provisioning standard. T1M1 isbeginning the straw proposal of the tML/XML documentation based on the pre-order and pre-qualification sections of the Service Fulfillment section of the DSL Forum WT-063 documentation.T1M1 will continue work on this at a planned interim meeting scheduled for June 26-27, and at thenext regular T1M1 meeting scheduled for the week of August 13. T1M1 is creating an emailexploder/list (<[email protected]>) for this work effort. DSLForum01-197 includes a DSLservice flow-through fulfillment question log (DSLForum01-212) proposed for use to documentissues and questions between T1M1 and the DSL Forum; it also includes a proposed methodology(DSLForum01-242) to expedite the answering of questions and resolution of issues between thetwo groups.

DSLForum01-225 is the DSL Forum liaison response to the T1M1 liaison (DSLForum01-197).The Forum notes their basic agreement with the T1M1 proposed approach for resolution ofongoing questions between T1M1 and the DSL Forum, and suggests some clarification andchanges. DSLForum01-225 includes the DSL service flow-through fulfillment Question Log,which contains the DSL Forum’s responses to the questions contained in the log included inDSLForum01-197. The Forum suggests that T1M1 revisit the questions they originallyformulated as they may not have considered WT-063 Revision 2.

Editor’s note: DSLForum01-244 is a liaison from T1M1 informing the Forum of T1M1 progresson the tML/XML-based DSL service provisioning standard. At their June 26-27 interim meeting,the T1M1.5 MS Sub-working Group reviewed the comments and requests from the Forumregarding the collaboration on this new standard. Of note, the T1M1.5 MS SWG informs that theyhave consensus on the DSL Forum proposals, but a broader review and approval is required byT1M1, which should be completed by the next regular T1M1 meeting, scheduled for August.

Regarding a project plan for the standard, absent any major impacts (e.g., major requirementsissues), it is likely that a set of letter ballots will be generated out of the November T1M1 meeting.This implies that the earliest completion and request for publication could be early in the firstquarter of 2002. In addition, T1M1 will work toward ITU Recommendation(s) at the appropriatetime. The 2001 regular T1M1 meeting schedule and notices can be found at the T1 web site:<www.t1.org/t1m1/_m1-man.htm>.

DSLForum01-245 is a liaison from T1M1 to industry forum leaders informing that T1M1 hasfinished the initial stages of the tML/XML schema formulation to support DSL serviceprovisioning (based on the DSL Forum’s DSL service flow-through provisioning requirements).Several schemas are involved with this first application. The most reusable schemas are targeted tobe part of a family of tML-base schemas within the overall tML family of schemas. The DSLservice provisioning schema will be considered part of the overall tML family of schemas.



At this meeting, B. Way (e-Site) was appointed DSL Forum liaison officer to T1M1.

Service Assurance

Service assurance consists of a set of functions that enable the detection, isolation, and correction ofabnormal operation of the telecommunications network and its environment. The service assurancefunction includes the following functions for in-service services:

• Fault management: the detection, isolation, and correction of abnormal operation of a network• Performance management: the evaluation and reporting upon the behavior and effectiveness of

the network

Since DSL service involves several operational entities providing service, determining the exactsource of a customer’s trouble can be complex. Current procedures typically involve eachoperational entity determining, in turn, that the problem is not in their domain. This is a time-consuming and often expensive process. Ideally, any operational entity in the DSL network couldhave tools to not only determine that the trouble is not in their domain, but to also determineunambiguously whose domain the trouble is in.

Joint O&NM/T&I Meeting

K. Armington (Telcordia) is leading a focus group on fault management.

DSLForum01-188 (K. Armington, Telcordia) provides a framework for defining trouble isolationprocedures for DSL data service. It focuses on fault management for DSL with the emphasis onisolating and correcting network faults that have been detected and reported by a DSL endcustomer. (Performance management will be addressed in a future work.)

This will now become a PD. Not much progress has been made on ATM loopback testingcapability implementation (limited implementation deployment). Part of the effort of this focusgroup is to create best practice documents; alternatives are still being explored. The umbrella forcontributions is there, although no one has indicated support yet. Maybe some interest in this willshow up at the August meeting in New Orleans. This will be revisited in Munich in December.

Although the Forum has approved TR-037 and TR-038 on auto-configuration and flow-through,they aren’t implemented, as they haven’t been tested yet. The Forum expects to be able to test auto-configuration before people have implemented flow through. It is likely they will be able to start atest plan for auto-configuration at the Munich meeting in December, and possibly for flow throughin 2002. Joint work with T1M1 has started on flow-through. They have an aggressive timeline foran XML interface; if it is available, then the Forum maybe able to start a flow through test plan inMunich also. This will be revisited in Munich.

CPE Auto-Configuration Sub-Working Group

J. Stephens (Cayman Systems) is the CPE Auto-configuration SWG Chair; J. Slaby (VirtualAccess) is the Vice-Chair. The presentation of the Auto-configuration WG to the closing plenary iscontained in DSLForum01-230.

DSLForum01-127 (G. Karmous-Edwards, Network Management Technology) is a lengthy andcomplex service provider questionnaire on DSL services and CPE auto-configuration. Resultsfrom this survey will provide input to the CPE Auto-configuration working group.



Summary of the May 2001 (Boston) Interim Meeting

DSLForum01-208 contains a presentation of the post-meeting notes of the May interim meeting ofthe Auto-Configuration working group.

DSLForum01-139 (G. Karmous-Edwards, Network Management Technology) containsconfiguration information tables agreed to in the March Vancouver meeting. This was partiallyupdated (the parameters for the different services) at this interim meeting; it will be completed by G.Karmous-Edwards and C. Hansen (Intel).

DSLForum01-134 (D. Willis, Nortel) proposes modifications to the baseline text for WT-059.

DSLForum01-133 (D. Allan, Nortel) discusses operational models vs. protocol choices for auto-configuration. Currently, the Auto-Configuration WG is considering two protocol proposalsacross the U-reference point:

• Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (IETF, LDAP), proposed in DSLForum01-077, Use ofdirectories and LDAP in the auto-configuration framework (D. Allan, Nortel; P. Nelson,Alcatel; J. Nevius, Copper Mountain; C. Taniguchi, SBC, March 2001)

• Reverse-SNMP, proposed in DSLForum00-427, Introduction to a framework describing CPEautomatic configuration (P. Gili, Cisco; G. Agmon, ADC; C. Hansen, Intel, December 2000)

In many areas of interest to auto-configuration, the capability and complexity of both protocolsuites are roughly comparable. However, a more fundamental view of how auto-configurationoperates is necessary to be able to precisely evaluate the subtleties and strengths of each.DSLForum01-133 discusses the various models of how auto-configuration “could” work, towardproviding a clearer context within which to discuss the relative merits of the proposed protocols.

DSLForum01-133 concludes that LDAP is the superior solution for a declarative/no-synchronization deployment model. Further, if the deployed services evolve to the point wheresome degree of real time device synchronization is required, the local synchronization model issuperior because:

• It is the most robust of the discussed modes of operation.• It is the most scalable solution.• It will result in faster deployment of new services.• It will have the fastest fulfillment times.

The response of service providers to the questionnaire is expected to show whether they haveindependently drawn similar conclusions.

In review of DSLForum01-133, there was much discussion about no-sync, local sync, and networksync models, and much discussion about LDAP vs. SNMP, and the interpretation of the serviceprovider survey results, including discussion of the impact of that process on schedulingdeliverables.

It was described how DOCSIS does equivalent auto-configuration. DOCSIS uses DHCP andTrivial File Transfer Protocol (RFC 1350) with a Network Termination (NT) parsable configurationfile. Re-configuration is triggered by a network originated SNMP SET to trigger the DHCP statemachine.



Concern was raised about the lack of progress; SNMP was proposed as the solution to be movedforward. There was more discussion about the interpretation of the service provider survey andwhether there was any clear indication of a preferred direction in the responses received so far.

Associated discussion pointed out that the solution must not preclude network-triggered re-configuration. Some significant SNMP code (ASN.1 parser, command handler) must be presentfor ILMI/TR-037 support. In considering LDAP issues, it was pointed out that LDAP persistentsearch will not scale to the volumes anticipated; also, LDAP persistent search is not standardized.

It was concluded that LDAP cannot meet the network trigger requirement. SNMP-based ACS canmeet the network trigger, and leverages the existing SNMP code. Reverse SNMP is alreadyimplemented as ILMI. It was decided to take an SNMP-based ACS forward to straw ballot.

WT-060 was reviewed to adjust to the new direction. A new document structure was agreed, whichwill leave WT-060 as the overarching framework document and add a new WT as a peer of TR-037and WT-059. P. Nelson (Alcatel) will serve as Editor of both. The new document structure is asfollows:

• WT-060, Framework: covers scope, requirements, models, architecture, layering, etc.• TR-037: ATM layer, Layer 2.5• WT-059: IP Service• WT-064: Services outside of TR-037 and WT-059 scope, ACS using SNMP, Reverse SNMP

(see below)

DSLForum01-138 (M. Brusca, Verizon) contains Verizon’s preliminary answers to the auto-configuration Survey.

DSLForum01-220 is an anonymous, completed service provider’s survey form.

DSLForum01-135 (S. Ooghe, P. Nelson, Alcatel) examines interactions between flow-throughservice fulfillment and auto-configuration. It documents an example of how auto-configuration andflow-through service fulfillment (TR-038, M. Sibbit, A. Shah, K. Johnson, DSL Service Flow-ThruFulfillment, DSL Forum, March 2001) can work together for effective and efficient service delivery.Also, it outlines how the declarative approach to auto-configuration reduces the number of service-related activities for service fulfillment.

In discussion, an omission of encapsulation in TR-038 was identified; the Flow-through group willpick up this omission in WT-063. The question remains open of who (which layer, provider)“owns” the encapsulation. The question was also asked: What is mandatory and what is optionalin TR-037? This is an open question that remains unresolved; it needs to be added to the living listfor this working group.

DSLForum01-189 (S. Gordhan, R. Daley, Fujitsu) provides both requirements and proposedsolutions to address auto-configuration of IP filter tables within the B-NT. The motivation for thiscontribution is that IP filtering, although a requirement on IPv4 routers (RFC1812 section 5.3.9), isnot a common feature on xDSL B-NT devices that provide IP services, and where it exists it tendsto be configured in a proprietary manner. IP filtering within the B-NT is required to ensure that IPtraffic only traverses an interface that it is supposed to. This is a key requirement for SwitchedVideo Broadcast (SVB) services and will also be applicable within a multi-service IP environment.Video services in general have not been within the remit of the auto-configuration working group,but as service providers start focusing on commercial deployments of such services over xDSL, it isimperative that an auto-configuration mechanism for IP filter tables be standardized within the DSLForum to enable a scaleable and flexible deployment of these services. The FS-VDSL sub-committee of the FSAN initiative is already looking at architectures for deploying video services



over VDSL access networks and this work should hopefully feed into the FS-VDSL group.DSLForum01-229 is a supporting slide presentation to DSLForum01-189.

WT-059, Auto-Configuration of Basic Internet Services

WT-059, Auto-Configuration of Basic Internet Services, describes the procedures recommended toautomatically configure connections between B-NT Customer Premises Equipment and InternetServices, focusing on the requirements across the DSL local loop. It specifies the usage of PPPand its related control protocols for services that require authentication, accounting and addressingand DHCP for bridged configurations and extensions beyond the configuration capabilities of aPPP connection. WT-059 was sent to straw ballot; comments will be addressed in New Orleans, inAugust.

WT-060, Framework for Auto-Configuration

WT-060, Framework for Auto-Configuration, provides a framework for DSL autoconfiguration. Itdescribes the range of protocols and associated features/parameters that will be used toautomatically configure DSL B-NT. It also describes how these various protocols inter-relate in thesequence of steps taken to configure the B-NT. Although primarily aimed at DSL it is hoped thatsince many of the tools and techniques described are independent of the physical layer, it may findapplicability for use with other broadband access technologies. Significant progress was made onthe scope and details of this WT; it is expected to go to straw ballot after the August meeting.

DSLForum01-136 (G. Young, AdEvia, P. Nelson, Alcatel) is a first and unedited “cut-and-paste”of sections assembled from many different volunteers to create this first Auto-Configurationbaseline text of WT-060. The sections of text that make up this document were assembled after theCambridge interim meeting in February 2001.

DSLForum01-196 (M. Brusca, Verizon) discusses LDAP as an optional centralized repository forinclusion in WT-060. To simplify the provisioning process for DSL end-user customers, upperlayer parameters could be “auto-configured,” building from ATM auto-configuration as it hasbeen specified up to now. Also building from the recently agreed SNMP MIB-based auto-configuration, the simplification of the provisioning process could be further extended by addingLDAP as an option for a centralized repository. A more distributed auto-configuration server(ACS) such as one that is SNMP-based could interwork with an optional LDAP centralizedrepository which contains an abstraction of the information. From the B-NT, this could betransparent. DSLForum01-196 focuses on the use of LDAP as a centralized database, while notstating a preference for any specific interface to it.

DSLForum01-201 (P. Nelson, Alcatel, E. Edmon, SBC; J. Slaby, Virtual Access; D. Allan, Nortel;B. Wenger, EarthLink) describes an architecture and framework for DSL auto-configuration basedon policy-based networking. The architecture is layered so that new technologies, protocols, andsolutions can be added to the framework where appropriate. DSLForum01-201 is proposed for thebaseline text for the auto-configuration architecture; an accompanying slide presentation iscontained in DSLForum01-226.

WT-064, Service Layer Auto-Configuration using SNMP

At the Boston Interim meeting, it had been agreed to start work on a straw ballot document,explaining how SNMP could be used to contact the ACS as the last step in the auto-configurationprocess. WT-064, Service Layer Auto-Configuration using SNMP, focuses on the differentrequirements that need to be fulfilled in order to make the protocol operations and interactions in



line with the layered architecture, described in the auto-configuration architecture and framework(WT-60).

DSLForum01-203 (S. Ooghe, P. Huyge, Alcatel) explains how the SNMP protocol can be used tocontact the ACS as the last step in the auto-configuration process. It shows which points requireattention to make the architecture consistent with the layered architecture described in WT-060.DSLForum01-203 is proposed as the baseline text for WT-064; an accompanying slidepresentation is contained in DSLForum01-227. This draft was reviewed, and edits begun.

DSLForum01-202 (P. Gili, Cisco) proposes working text for WT-064 describingRecommendations concerning elements of procedure, as it pertains to the auto-configuration service(ACS).

WT-065, Configuration Information for CPE Auto-Configuration

WT-065, Configuration Information for CPE Auto-Configuration, describes and enumerates theconfiguration information required for CPE auto configuration across the U interface. It referencesthe mechanism used for configuring the B-NT. It further describes the source of the configurationinformation during the ordering process, providing a link between the Service-InfoFlow work andthe CPE auto-configuration work. It was discussed in a joint meeting with the Architecture WG.WT-065 is expected to go to straw ballot after the August meeting.

Liaisons

DSLForum01-224 is a liaison to the IETF Dynamic Host Configuration working group asking forinformation on the status of the DHCP Reconfigure Extension Internet Draft (draft-ietf-dhc-pv4-reconfigure-04.txt). The DSL Forum informs that they are currently working on the auto-configuration of DSL CPEs. A portion of their recommended solution relies on DHCP and muchof the work in the Dynamic Host Configuration WG. The Forum considers the work in the DHCPReconfigure Extension Internet Draft important and useful to the Internet community. They wouldlike to include it as part of their Technical Recommendation upon its approval as a ProposedStandard.

Next Steps

A new work item on image management will be opened. A teleconference meeting is scheduled forearly August, and an interim meeting is planned for mid-October.

Testing & Interoperability (T&I) Working Group

F. Kaudel (Fluke) is the T&I WG Chair; S. Valcourt (UNH) is the Vice-Chair. DSLForum01-234a contains the minutes and reports related to this meeting of the T&I WG. DSLForum01-232contains the T&I WG presentation to the closing plenary. DSLForum01-143 contains the minutesand various related documents from the T&I WG March meeting in Vancouver. The followingdocuments contain the minutes of the interim meetings of the T&I WG and ISWG:

DSLForum01-126: Minutes of the April 20 meetingDSLForum01-144: Minutes of the May 15 meetingDSLForum01-237: Minutes of the June 27 meeting

DSLForum01-243 updates and summarizes recent progress in the T&I WG and the ISWG actionitem log. DSLForum01-237a contains spreadsheet of the T&I documents and Excel format of theAction items.



Liaison with TR-41.9

DSLForum01-209 is a liaison from TIA TR-41.9 including a copy of the report of the TR-41.9May meeting in Tampa, Florida (see also CSR 12.24). TR-41.9 informs that they have been askedto look into G.shdsl and VDSL technical requirements for possible inclusion into Part 68. TR-41.9is working with T1E1.4 to address this issue, since T1E1.4 is the expert group on loop spectrummanagement issues. TR-41.9 notes the FCC privatization of the formulation of technical criteria tothe newly formed Administrative Council for Terminal Attachment (ACTA). ACTA is required topublish technical requirements submitted to it by any ANSI-accredited standards developmentorganization subject to limitations as listed in the FCC Report and Order 00-400, ref. CC Docket99-216. There is a lot of pressure from the industry for requirements covering xDSL. Moreinformation on ACTA can be obtained at their website: <http://www.part68.org>.

DSLForum01-241 is the response liaison to TR-41.9, thanking them for establishing a liaison withthe Forum. The Forum welcomes further discussion of how the two organizations can worktogether on xDSL test plans and xDSL equipment qualification. The Forum notes their interest inreceiving any additional information TR-41.9 can provide regarding their work on Part 68, such asdescription or mailing list.

Test Plans

The status of the proposed drafts (test plans) is as follows:

• PD-002: Defines a suite of basic physical layer tests for G.992.1 Annex A (ADSL overPOTS), Annex B (ADSL over ISDN) and Annex C (ADSL co-existing with TCM-ISDN).Updates for Annex H (SSDSL co-existing with TCM-ISDN) are to be added. Tests 9 and 10(sections 4.10, [Exchange of G.997.1 messages over Clear EOC channel] and 4.11,[Interoperability of Network Management Layer], respectively) are not yet defined.

• PD-003 – PD-005 (G.lite, HDSL2, G.shdsl): No updates at this meeting• PD-006 (PPP): Updates agreed in joint session with Architecture (see below)• PD-007 (Framework): Jointly with G8, defined but not released

WT-051, ADSL Dynamic Interoperability Testing

WT-051, ADSL Dynamic Interoperability Testing, describes ADSL dynamic interoperability testsuites and test cases for the standards T1.413, G.992.1 and G.992.2. The Test Suites for the ITU-T standards G.992.1 and G.992.2 draw heavily on G.996.1 (G.test). Relationships among the testsfor Dynamic Interoperability, Static Interoperability and Conformance are described in TR-023,Overview of ADSL Testing. The editors are D. Hay (Admit Design Systems Ltd.), and W. Picken(Kromos Technology).

WT-051 v.4 was updated: notes were integrated and distributed. The list of editorial notes iscontained in DSLForum01-234a. A straw ballot is planned for the next meeting.

WT-062 (v.2/v.3), ADSL Interoperability Test Plan

WT-062 (v.2/v.3), ADSL Interoperability Test Plan, describes interoperability test cases requiredfor ADSL reference systems consisting of DSLAMs and CPE modems. The key items of loopreach, data handling performance, and electrical compatibility are tested to demonstrate compliancewith deployment based requirements. The editors are S. Aspell and R. Brost (SBC). The work isprogressing well, with a straw ballot expected July 23, 2001.



Technical editor’s note: The discussions below include issues discussed at the interim April andMay meetings. The results noted are from the conclusion of discussions at this (June) meeting.

At the April meeting, a cover was added (to WT-062 v.2), language (should, must, shall) was addedto Section 2, and a number of editorial corrections were made. Also, the following documents werediscussed:

DSLForum01-123 (S. Aspell, R. Brost, SBC; K. Caudle, BellSouth) proposes the addition of onedata point each to the Full Rate Variable Loop Test Tables in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4. Theproposed changes were accepted.

DSLForum01-125 (D. Hay, Admit Systems) offers comments on the test procedures described inWT-062 Revision 2. It observes that implementation of the majority of WT-062 tests is straight-forward, but will inevitably result in a rather lengthy test sequence. The main concern is with thesuggested implementation of the Data Throughput tests in Section 8, in particular paragraphs 8.1 to8.4 inclusive. The contributors note that they have not worked through a complete alternativetechnical implementation of Sections 8.1 to 8.4, at this stage. They affirm that it would bepreferable to follow a more “standard” test setup, as illustrated in Figure 2 of WT-062, or as isalready used in the Forum’s TR-029 or WT-051 documents. Instead of using a PC, Unixworkstation 5 MB test file, etc., a traffic generator/analyzer should be used to perform tests 8.1 to8.4. The test configuration will be similar to that used in test 8.5. This method should providemore consistent and repeatable results. DSLForum01-125 also suggests that WT-062 allowalternative implementations other than what it presently describes.

The proposal to use a traffic generator rather than a PC was well received. It was agreed to draft aproposed text for this change. The point was raised that internal modem test cases may requireextra/parallel test cases. It was agreed to draft text to propose parallel test cases for internalmodems and USB modems vs. external modems.

DSLForum01-182 (D. Hayes, Admit; A. Pickering, BTExaCT) proposes a test method for tests 8.1to 8.3 in WT-062 (v.2) utilizing a traffic generator/analyzer, giving test results with improvedaccuracy and repeatability. It combines working tests 8.1 to 8.3 into two tests, “Data Throughput”and “Latency” tests, and describes in detail the test configuration setups required to perform thesetests for the following four modem data interface types: 1) ATM25, 2) Ethernet, 3) USB, and 4)PCI. The DSLAM interface considered was STM-1; alternatives include STM-4 or Ethernet.

It was agreed to review the USB and PCI interface throughput performance for Section 1.1.4(Expected results) of DSLForum01-182 and WT-062v5 (possibly reducing the required 85%[from DSLForum01-163] of train rate). See further discussions below.

At the April meeting it was pointed out that, although WT-062 is to be seen as an internationalframework for ADSL interoperability tests, network specific preferences occur due to the differencein regional telecommunications networks. It was suggested to create a matrix to specify which testis relevant for which region (also line lengths); this was agreed.

DSLForum01-137 (A. Ehre, Cetecom) proposes a framework for a network-specific selectionmatrix. It provides an overview of telecommunication networks requirements world-wide, andproposes three initial, general clusters to address the following specific regions: North American,European, and Asian-Pacific hemispheres; further clusters can be added if needed. The owners andusers of the specific networks (service providers, network providers, regulatory bodies, etc.) need tofill in the matrix. In discussion at the May meeting, questions were raised on the tractability ofregional clusters if many clusters are required; it was agreed that if only a few are required, asdescribed in the proposed framework, this is acceptable. It was agreed to add the proposed clustersA and B into WT-062 v.4.



Also at the May meeting, in discussion of WT-062 v.3, more editorial changes were introduced.Further, the following documents were discussed:

DSLForum01-140 (A. Pickering, BTExaCT) proposes a high level structure for WT-062; it is foran editorial change only and does not affect the contents of the document. It proposes that thedocument be reorganized into the following four main test categories:

• Performance tests, to cover all the physical layer and higher layer performance type tests (e.g.,loop performance tests). There will probably be sub-sections that cover each layer (1, 2, and 3)and any service specific tests.

• Functional tests, to cover any testing of the functional features of the modem (e.g., lineattenuation reporting).

• Electrical tests, to cover any electrical type tests (e.g., balance and PSD measurements).• Compatibility tests, to cover any compatibility testing with other services, like telephony.

DSLForum01-141 (R. Brost, SBC) proposes the addition of an appendix to WT-062 that specifiesthe accuracy of loop simulators and noise sources to be used for ADSL loop testing. It was agreedthat this is important for both North American and European loops. It was noted that BT uses lineattenuation, and is happy with real cable network. A desire to compare against real cables wasexpressed; it was agreed to consider checking loss/impedance also against real cable.

It was agreed to use “operation in the presence of impulse noise events (G.996.1, test impulse 1)”from DSLForum01-069 (Baseline text for the DSL Forum independent test lab scheme, A.Pickering, BTExaCT, DSL Forum Vancouver, March 2001) for Section 10.2 table (test details) inWT-062 v.4.

In the discussions (at two meetings) on test equipment types, it was reported that discussion is stillin progress in G8. A suggestion was made to list equipment types in an Appendix to WT-062. Itwas agreed that information on the equipment used by test labs (e.g., make, model) is needed toderive the performance numbers. It was agreed that it would be preferable to specify once, andretain the ability to recalibrate; for Europe/North America, different loop simulators will be neededanyway. It was agreed to obtain, via MoU, a copy of ETSI TS 101 388, ADSL European specificrequirements.

The question was asked, why test using HDSL impairments. It was noted that these are theimpairments used by labs, and millions of HDSL lines are in networks. It was also noted thatSHDSL testing involves a very different PSD.

The issue of whether there is a need for two wireline simulators was discussed at the May meeting.A second simulation might be required beyond 12 Kft or greater than 70 dB attenuation. It wasagreed to make the appropriate changes in WT-62.

In discussion of requirements for G.lite+ADSL over ISDN testing, it was pointed out that Annex Bin G.dmt has no performance requirements. Input on these requirements is expected from theEuropean operators.

June Meeting Discussions

DSLForum01-160 (A. Pickering, BTExaCT) presents a comparison of real ADSL modemperformance against the European requirements detailed in WT-062, which are the same as thosedetailed in the ITU Recommendation G.992.1. It was presented for information only and wasintended to highlight that the European performance requirements are both realistic and, in mostcases, achievable. Tests were carried out at BT Laboratories on 44 remote modems and compared



against the standard European requirements that are detailed in section 7.6 of WT-062 (v.3). Testswere only carried out on the 40 dB and 50 dB loops with Euro-K noise at the ATU-C and ETSI-Anoise at the ATU-R. More than two-thirds of the 44 modems met or exceeded the requirements.Measurements should also be made against the other performance requirements in WT-062 beforeany further discussion takes place. A companion slide presentation to DSLForum01-160 iscontained in DSLForum01-234a.

In discussion, a need was identified for similar measurements for other performance requirementsin WT-062. A contribution is required to specify margins and what constitutes pass/fail withrespect to margins; also, a methodology to measure margins is needed (e.g., for Test 10.6.2,Reporting of ADSL noise margin).

DSLForum01-161 (D. Mueller, TUV Rheinland of North America) contains comments from TUVRheinland on the test procedures described in WT-062 v.3. In particular, the comment on Section7.1 (loop test cases, test set-up) addresses the question of why two loop simulators should berequired; it proposes that, instead of requiring two loop simulators, the quality of the line simulationbe specified, if not already required by the description of the standard loops. This comment iscovered by DSLForum01-217 (below).

The comment on Section 7.2 (full rate variable loop tests) addresses a discrepancy betweenreferenced standards and WT-062 requirements. WT-062 goes beyond ANSI T1.413 and ITU-TG.992.1 requirements; by requiring different standards, in a worst case a DUT, fully compliant toeither ANSI or ITU-T, would be disqualified by WT-062. DSLForum01-161 proposes that,instead of specifying certain speeds for certain loop lengths, the manufacturer should declare themaximum speed of the DUT, and the connecting speeds in the requirement tables should bereplaced by a percentage of the stated maximum speed. In discussion, the issue of multiplereconfigurations for multiple tests was considered acceptable; it was suggested that maybe an extracolumn can be added (e.g., meet spec, indicate version, but fail test). It was also suggested that WT-062 be clarified (e.g., Section 3, 3 Standards referenced for Dynamic Interoperability testing). Fornow this is covered by the action item on Section 3.

The comment on Section 8 (data thruput tests) proposes to change the test description in allsubparagraphs to allow for alternative methods of performing the tests. This comment is coveredby DSLForum01-182, above.

The comment on Section 9.1 (ATM connectivity tests) proposes that test cases be classified“conditional” and only tested if the ATM capabilities are implemented; this was not accepted.

Comments for sections 9.2.2 through 9.4 (ADSL functionality tests) were highlighted for review;these comments assert that the following are not interoperability criteria and propose that thecorresponding test cases be removed: diagnostic tools, connector pin assignment, Ethernet cablepinout, Layer 3 functionality tests, ease of use or ergonomics. In discussion of Layer 3functionality tests (Section 9.3), it was pointed out that customers feel that this is an interoperabilityrequirement.

Section 10.1 (DSL Noise Spikes/Surges Tests) comments are covered by DSLForum01-182,above.

Electrical compatibility tests section 10.5.1 (analog front end power) and 10.5.2 (PSDmeasurements) comments assert that no accurate measurements can be obtained with this test setup.It proposes that to ensure a clean and uninfluenced measurement of the PSD and total power, theDUT should be required to provide a special test mode in which it can send maximum power atpreset line speeds – without a received signal present. This technique has been successfullydeployed for many years in the testing of analog modems. It was noted that the test methods for



these sections don’t provide the correct 100 Ohm termination or meet the PSD notes. A test modeproposal would need to be elaborated (e.g., short and 12 Kft loop cases, power back offs) to meetthe straw comment timetable. DSLForum01-163 covers this in part (except the 100 Ohms part).

The comments in DSLForum01-161 about Section 10.5.3 (input impedance) note that in moststandards the impedance is calculated as a return loss graph; this is more efficient as it also verifiesthe frequency response. DSLForum01-161 proposes to change the method of procedureaccordingly to allow for options like using a return loss bridge or an impedance analyzer. It wasagreed that both methods are acceptable; extra words are required to clarify the test method. It wasnoted that G.992.1 has no impedance and return loss requirements to meet; they are implied fromthe performance requirements.

The comments on Section 10.5.4 (longitudinal balance), referring to the method of procedure(currently TBD), asks: Is it longitudinal output power or longitudinal conversion loss? It proposesto incorporate a measurement similar to the ETSI TS 101 524 Paragraph 9.3. Two methods wereallowed but more details are required, e.g., different impedance (100 Ohm vs. 135 Ohm).

The comments on Section 10.6 (Reporting of ADSL line conditions), also referring to the methodof procedure (currently TBD), asserts that if the Embedded Operations Channel (EOC) isimplemented correctly, all these data should be available at the ATU-C side. DSLForum01-161proposes to provide, at the ATU-C side, commands to read the line condition data from the ATU-Cdirectly and retrieve the ATU-R data through the EOC. DSLForum01-179 also addresses this.

DSLForum01-163 (P. Youngberg, Sprint) provides comments on WT-062 v.3. The comments onSection 6.1 Table 3 (CPE features description) include a proposal to delete “Power Boost/Cut”; itseems to be a holdover from T1.413 – Issue 1. No change was made, as it was considered usefulfor knowledge of proprietary extensions. The proposal to add “Serial Number” to the Test Itemlist was accepted.

The comments on Section 7.1 (Loop test cases, test setup) proposes to add a bullet to DSLAM PortSettings Common to All Loop Tests: “Delay for Interleave Mode Tests shall 12 ms maximum” toconform to G.992.1. This was agreed with the change of 12 to 16 msec (G.992 uses 12).

The comment on Section 7.2 (Full rate variable loop tests) notes that it is never actually stated thatthe data rates in this section are modem training sync rates. It proposes therefore to add a sentenceat the end of 7.2: “Sync Rates in Section 7 are modem train sync rates reported by the DSLAM.”It was agreed to use the net data rate as defined in G.992.1.

The following comments from DSLForum01-163 were also accepted:

• Section 7.2.3: Add “(-45.3 dBm)” following “24 HDSL impairment”• Section 7.2.4: Add “(-53.8 dBm)” following “24 DSL impairment”• Section 7.2.5: Add “(-49.7 dBm)” following “5 T1 adjacent binder impairment”

Levels as specified in G.996.1:

• Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.5, 8.10, 10.7: In diagrams, change box labeled “A” to “ATU-C” andbox labeled “B” to “ATU-R”

The comment on Section 8.0 (Data thruput tests) proposes to change “FEC redundancy: Off” to“FEC redundancy: Off (if configurable).” FEC redundancy is not configurable on all DSLAMs.It was agreed to add extra results field that indicates whether FEC redundancy is configurable. Thisaffects all the tests in Section 8 and the report template; it also relates to a comment inDSLForum01-179.



The comment on Section 8.1 (test configuration, specified in Figure 2) proposes to change the titleto “Actual Rate vs. Trained Rate,” and to eliminate some text. (Figure 2, Test setup for throughputtests for ADSL external modems with Ethernet interfaces, does not apply to all cases.) Thiscomment also relates to DSLForum01-182. The issue of how encapsulation is done was raised.These comments to Section 8.1 were accepted.

The items contained in the comments to Sections 8.1.1 (Test description), 8.1.2 (Test results), and8.1.3 (Expected results) are on the living list from DSLForum01-182. Under the proposal torenumber the current Section 8.1.3 to Section 8.1.4, it was proposed and agreed to change theExpected results section number to 8.1.4, and to change 90% to 85%.

The comment on Latency tests, sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3.1 proposes to change packet sizefrom 1400 to 1280, noting that many automated test scripts are set up for 1280. This was agreed.

The comment on Section 8.3 (Frame size test) proposes to eliminate Sections 8.3, 8.3.1 and 8.3.2;they seem to be a duplication of 8.2.1, 8.2.2. It was agreed to add this to the living list.

The comment on Section 9.1.6 (ATM connectivity tests, QoS support) proposes to changeExpected result to read: “When a port carrying CBR and UBR is overloaded, ensure that onlyUBR traffic is discarded and that CBR traffic still gets the bandwidth allocated to it. Ensure that thesame is true for CBR vs. VBRrt (variable bit rate real time) and CBR vs. VBRnrt (variable bit ratenon-real time).” This change was accepted. It was asked whether all four of the listed servicetypes (CBR, UBR, VBRrt, and VBRnrt) should be required for all CPE to meet? It wasrecommended that the phrase “if implemented” be added before the test description. It was alsorecommended that the test be used to determine whether cells of certain types are dropped in anoverloaded circuit.

The comment on Section 10.1 (DSL noise spikes/surges tests, test description) proposes thatimpulse noise testing be done using the procedure given in G.996.1, rather than use the test asdefined. It was clarified that this test is not a replacement; one test examines standard state diagram,the other looks at traffic transfer. It was agreed that the test presented will not replace 10.1, but thatit might make a good North American example of 10.2 (Operation in the presence of impulse noiseevents [G.996.1, Test Impulse 1]). It was suggested and agreed to renumber this test to 10.2.2.The following questions were raised: 4 dB or 6 dB margin? It was agreed that 24 HDSL disturbersare down to 4 dB. FEC active or not? This was not specified; it is the tester’s option to make thishappen. The point was made that without FEC this test will not work.

It was pointed out that the matrix (10.1.2 Results) needs to be populated, and that a contribution iscoming for this. It was suggested and agreed that it include text to indicate that this test is astandard test based on G.992.1 Section F.2.2 and G.996.1 5.1.3.1 (Impulse noise) using CSALoop #6.

The comment on Section 10.3 (Stress tests) proposes to delete first bullet: An FEC redundancy isnot configurable on all DSLAMs. This was agreed.

The comment on Section 10.5.1 (Electrical compatibility tests, analog front-end power) proposes tochange “measure power within parameters” to “Total aggregate transmit power shall be no greaterthan 20.4 dBm for downstream and 12.5 dBm for upstream.” It was agreed to table this for adiscussion on PSD.

The comment on Section 10.5.2 (Electrical compatibility tests, PSD measurements) recommendschanging the loop to a short distance, rather than a long loop, to increase the data rate.



The comment on Section 10.8.2 (Modem start-up test time, network timing reference) proposes todelete the section. This section was originally requested by Sprint. However, few CPE modemshave the external access points required for making the measurements needed to run this test. Thiswas agreed.

DSLForum01-164 (K. Eckersall, KTL) presents comments on specific parts of the ADSLinteroperability test plan described within WT-062. The loop performance tests within WT-062 areto be performed only once, in contrast to the University of New Hampshire equivalent tests, whichrepeat up to five times. DSLForum01-164 seeks to highlight the variation in results possible whenonly performing a test once, and proposes to increase this number to provide more consistent andrepeatable results. It was noted that such an increase dramatically increases the size of the test suite.A companion slide presentation to DSLForum01-164 is contained in DSLForum01-234a.

DSLForum01-166 (P. Youngberg, Sprint) proposes a set of splitterless mode tests for inclusion inWT-062. It was agreed to add this to the living list. General interest was expressed in includingsplitterless ADSL testing in a future version of the ADSL Interoperability Test Plan. The followingfour concerns were expressed:

1) A repeatable specification for in-line filters is needed2) A more realistic model for phones is needed3) The ability to test the effect of on/off hook transitions is needed4) There is interest in using a 6 dB margin and all 256 bins

It was noted that most deployments are in splitterless mode but problems exist in the field. It wasagreed to carry on the living list to guide refinements and field splitterless troubles. Such a testwould be regional (North American and Europe).

DSLForum01-179 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) provides 32 comments on WT-062 v3. Thesecomments were discussed extensively and detailed changes made in WT-062. Comments 19through 31 were not covered: pending F. van der Putten’s presence. These items will be clarifiedand discussed on the e-mail list ([email protected]). Some of the items (21, 24, 25 and 28)were updated (see DSLForum01-218, below).

DSLForum01-180 (S. Gischrist, KTL) presents information on the performance characteristics ofloop simulators in comparison to the loop models described in ITU-T G.996.1 Table 2 (NorthAmerican test loops) and Table 6 (ETSI test loops) and against the accuracy requirements describedin DSLForum01-141. The intent is to establish whether the accuracy limits described inDSLForum01-141 are achievable using current established loop simulator equipment. Theaccuracy for loop simulation specified in DSLForum01-141 requires that:

• Up to 20 dB attenuation a margin of ± 0.5 dB should be achieved• Between 20 dB and 70 dB attenuation an accuracy of 5% up to a maximum of ± 1.5 dB should

be achieved

DSLForum01-180 shows that in the case of the Sparnex LS2025 simulation of European loopmodels, the accuracy requirement of DSLForum01-141 is generally achievable. TheDLSTestworks (Division of Spirent) DLS 400A simulation of North American loop models didnot achieve this level of accuracy. It should be noted that this assessment was performed for thepurposes of information only; the results should not be regarded as final.

DSLForum01-219 (J. Eyres, M. Giroux, Spirent Communications) presents information on theperformance characteristics of the DLS 400A / H / N & HN wireline simulators in comparison tothe loop models described in ITU-T G.996.1 Table 2 (North American test loops) and against the



accuracy requirements in DSLForum01-141. It aims to supplement the results of DSLForum01-180 (S. Gilchrist, KTL, ADSL Loop simulation performance for WT062 consideration).

It concludes that, although an interesting set of test results, the data presented in DSLForum01-180does not reflect the performance of DLS 400As as tested at DLS’ factory. To verify this, a surveyof the production test results of 380 DLS 400 ADSL simulators was undertaken.

The results do not agree with those presented by KTL. DLS has in this report offered test resultsfrom 10 kHz to 1.5 MHz with comparisons to the standard at 10 kHz and 300 kHz. The DLS testresults show that DLS 400 ADSL wireline simulators meets the accuracy requirements as specifiedboth in DSLForum01-141 as well as in DLS’ own specifications.

DLS is undertaking an investigation of the differences in performance as exhibited by the KTL’sDLS 400A when compared to DLS’s own test results. It was agreed to review the factory data tobetter understand the conclusions in DSLForum01-180. The ITU approach looks good (self-calibration procedure for simulators in either T1.413 I2 or G.992.1 or G.996.1). No changes aresuggested for WT-062 v.4 for now, however the +/-1.5 dB tolerance may be too big.

In further discussion of DSLForum01-182, it was noted that USB has a 12 Mbit/s bus with lowand high powered options which need to be specified. A margin of 6 dB is targeted at 85% oftrained data rate, with ATM layer overhead. It was noted that payload scrambling is required forADSL [G.dmt/G.lite/T1.413] and that FEC redundancy is off (if configurable). Concerns about 64and 128 frame length throughputs were raised. It was agreed to replace section 8 of WT-062 v.4with DSLForum01-182 as edited.

DSLForum01-184 (A. Ehre, Cetecom) contains four editorial and three technical comments to WT-062 v.3. The editorial comments were agreed. In discussion it was noted that testing a CPE againstonly one DSLAM is an operability report, not really an interoperability test. There is a need to testall systems for full (multi-platform) interoperability. There is a potential for testing in ITLs thatmay not be meaningful to some carriers. This raised the issue of certification, but these discussionswere postponed.

DSLForum01-184, technical comment on ATM connectivity tests (sections 9.1.5 [SCV], 9.1.6[QoS], 9.1.7 [F4/F5 OAM]), suggests that these tests aren’t clear enough to implementinteroperability. It was agree to add notes regarding these tests. The other technical comments onPSD measurements and longitudinal balance were also considered but not resolved. SeeDSLForum01-233, below.

DSLForum01-204 (B. Burke, Bandspeed) proposes a test suite for addition to Section 7 (Loop testcases) of WT-062 v.3 to measure the performance of CO-based ADSL in the presence of crosstalkgenerated by remote TU-Cs within the same binder group. It proposes the use of two loopsimulators. One will be set to the cable length between the CO and remote ATU-C. The other willbe set for the remaining cable length between the remote ATU-C and the ATU-R, so that the sum ofthe simulators equals the total ADSL 26 gauge EWL. Coupling between the interfering RT-basedADSL services and the CO-based ADSL service is assumed to take place along the entire length ofcable between the remote ATU-C and the collocated ATU-Rs that terminate all ADSL services.This raised many issues that need resolution.

DSLForum01-217 (R. Brost, SBC) proposes the addition of an appendix to WT-062 that specifiesthe accuracy of loop simulators and noise sources to be used for ADSL loop testing. It also revisesFigures 1 and 2 of WT-062 to indicate one loop simulator. For discussion, see the G8/T&I jointmeeting report, below.



DSLForum01-218 (R. Brost, SBC) proposes changing the test procedures and/or test set-ups infive places in WT-062. Three of these points address issues raised in DSLForum01-179 and wereaccepted.

DSLForum01-233 (A. Ehre, Cetecom) addresses WT-062 electrical compatibility tests. It mergesthe proposals received and discussed at this meeting (See DSLForum01-161 and DSLForum01-184), to obtain a usable description of the test cases and their performance. It proposes to modifySection 10.5 to indicate that the following five individual tests must be performed and passed:

• Test 10.5.1 – Analog front end power• Test 10.5.2 – PSD measurements• Test 10.5.3 – Input impedance• Test 10.5.4 – Longitudinal balance (longitudinal conversion loss)• Test 10.5.5 – Longitudinal balance (longitudinal output voltage)

To perform the tests described in this section, two test modes should be available in the deviceunder test:

• Test mode “continuously sending.” In this test mode, the device under test shall continuouslygenerate signals at its maximum power and maximum spectrum without being connected to acounterpart modem. The modem shall send a pseudo random data sequence of 215-1 or higher.

• Test mode “online quiet.” In this test mode the device under test shall be in a condition wherethe line interface is powered up, but not transmitting any signal (i.e., inactive, driving 0 V).

DSLForum01-235 (K. Eckersall, KTL) presents comments on specific parts of the ADSLinteroperability test plan described within WT-062. Sections 9.5.1 (transmit power) and 9.5.2(power spectral density) of WT-062 v.4 are not fully specified in terms of methodology andcompliance limits. DSLForum01-235 provides further details to expand these sections, and makesreference to the applicable sections of ADSL standards (ANSI T1.413, ITU-T G.992.1) to ensureconsistency.

DSLForum01-234a Attachment 5 provides a spreadsheet showing the status of WT-062 as of June21, 2001. WT-062 is expected to go to straw ballot at the July interim meeting of the T&I WG.Discussion of the following contributions was not completed at this meeting: DSLForum01-179, -180, -182, -184, -217, -218, -219; they will be addressed in teleconference and via the emailreflector. Two teleconference meetings are scheduled for June 27 and July 23; an interim meetingwas also requested for August 27-28.

G.992.1 ADSL Physical Layer Interoperability Test Plan (PD-002)

DSLForum01-167 (M. Ueda, Sumitomo Electric; NEC, Oki Electric, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Matsushita,Hitachi, NTT) provides a revision marked update to the G.992.1 Physical Layer InteroperabilityTest Plan (PD-002) to extend its scope to G.992.1 Annex H (SSDSL). In discusion, it was notedthat the DSL Forum’s most recent version of G.992.1 (June 99) includes no Annex H. It wasagreed to ask ITU SG15 for a copy, via liaison (per the MoU).

Joint Session with TIA TR-30.3

DSLForum01-120 is a liaison to TR-30.3 from the DSL Forum March meeting thanking TR-30.3for the information on the progress of draft EIA/TIA-876, North American Network AccessTransmission Model for Evaluating xDSL Modem Performance (PN-4254), and requesting copiesof the same, as well as any updates from the TR-30.3 April meeting. The Forum asserts theirinterest in being able to compare the dynamic interoperability (performance) of many xDSL



modems, for loops on a worldwide scope. The DSL Forum is interested in applying the NetworkModel Coverage (NMC) methodology specified in draft EIA/TIA-876 in future DSL Forumtechnical reports and test plans. The Forum asks TR-30.3 what experiences they have had in theapplication of the methods of draft EIA/TIA 876 in the comparison of modems.

DSLForum01-210 is the liaison report from TIA TR-30.3 on their April meeting in Wilmington,Delaware, which addressed PN-4254, Network access transmission model for evaluating xDSLmodem performance, and PN-4255, Test procedures for evaluating xDSL system performance.

Discussion with members of TR-30.3 considered international items being worked with ETSI andDSL Forum. A request was made for inputs for data, either as contributions or anonymous (e.g., 4million loops in US, in 38 states, are being integrated into PN-4254). PN-4254 has passedcommittee ballot, but work is continuing to improve and further validate it before industry ballot.Input is being awaited for international loops. NMC is used for a statistical look at the network(used for more than a decade); waterfall curves; comparison of modems to come later (dependingon implementation availability); There were no comments yet from TR-30.3 on WT-051. Theirplan is to first validate PN-4254, then get the TR-30.3 model into final shape.

PN-4255 is currently in an early state. TR-30.3 will soon begin to work more on test procedures;they welcome input and participation.

Next steps include review of the updated PN-4254 draft (including model results validationprocess) and WT-051 during a joint session at the New Orleans meeting in August. The TR-30.3July meeting will likely produce a revised draft of PN-4254 .

DSLForum01-240 is the liaison output from this meeting to TR-30.3. The Forum is interested inapplying the NMC methodology specified in draft EIA/TIA-876 in future DSL Forum technicalreports and test plans. The Forum asks what experience TR-30.3 has had in the validation of themethods of draft EIA/TIA-876 in the comparison of modems.

Joint Session with Architecture & Transport

DSLForum01-132 (R. Sarmiento, Spirent) proposes some improvements to WT-052 v.5 (PPPstatic interoperability testing); it introduces a reference test methodology for verifying end-to-endframe transmission of PPP-based traffic over the DSL network. These tests can benefit from amore consistent approach as to how end-to-end frame transmission is verified. Additionally, itprovides a method for measurable test results for conclusive pass/fail criteria.

DSLForum01-132 was introduced and discussed in the May T&I/ISWG interim meeting. At thatmeeting, the question was posed how to test with PC NICs and USB modems for packet level, asthis is more on a packet level, like WT-062. It was suggested that this is applicable for both WT-052 and WT-062 (clarify Test 7.1 in WT-062). It was also suggested that this might be spun offfor dynamic interoperability testing, and maybe for WT-051 also. At this meeting, the proposedimprovements from DSLForum01-132 were agreed.

WT-052, PPP Static Interoperability Testing v.5, changes were agreed during the joint Architecturesession. The scope will only include PPP testing over ATM. The work seems to be on track forstraw ballot at the New Orleans meeting in August.



Outgoing Liaisons

DSLForum01-118 contains the completed MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) letter to theETSI TM6 Chair requesting DSL testing and interoperability documents, from the DSL ForumMarch meeting in Vancouver.

G8 Interoperability Group

M. Peden (NorthPoint Communications) is the G8 IG Chair. The G8 IG presentation to theclosing plenary is contained in DSLForum01-230.

Joint G8 Session with the Testing & Interoperability Working Group: G8Independent Test Lab (ITL) Process

DSLForum01-217 (R. Brost, SBC) proposes the addition of an appendix to WT-062 that specifiesthe accuracy of loop simulators and noise sources to be used for ADSL loop testing. It also revisesFigures 1 and 2 of WT-062 to indicate one loop simulator. DSLForum01-217 supersedesDSLForum01-141.

In review of DSLForum01-217, the following issues were raised and discussed: The use of 140 dBis too high; an alternative number needs to be calculated. DSLForum01-141 specifies 70 dB on asingle loop simulator. ITU G.996.1 Section 6.1, Table 2, specifies up to 110 dB at 1.1 MHz as anoverspec for modem use. Also, Section 6.1.2 specifies up to 60 dB at 300 kHz for Europeanrequirements for WT-062, for attenuations. This is “the attenuation that corresponds to therequirements of the longest case in the test plan (frequency dependent)” for now; line simulator is.5 dB to 20 dB.

Further: the Appendix should be an Annex, since this would be normative. European cables need tobe specified. Also, temperatures are not specified; room temperature may be implied (common testspec). In Section 5, the 1.5 dB tolerance may be too high; there was no resolution on this. Therevised Figures were accepted (bridged taps internally). The noise source parameters (Section 1.2)don’t match G.996.1; no resolution was proposed. European noise sources are also needed; thishas also not been proposed yet. The ADSL/ETSI disturber types are not in the table for Section1.2, but ADSL/ETSI crosstalk is mentioned in tests. It may be easiest to just referenceG.test/G.996.1.

DSLForum01-181 (Joint T&I WG/G8) proposes a test report template for use by the DSL ForumIndependent Testing Lab (ITL) project for DSL interoperability. This template structure intends tocapture all required data in a common reporting format allowing multiple sites to provide test resultsin an equivalent manner. The structure is designed to support automated report generation. Acompanion slide presentation of this report template is contained in DSLForum01-234a.

In discussion of DSLForum01-181, a number of comments were raised. It was agreed that thescope of the testing is CPE (for now). The issue was noted: ITLs can be for one of the threeADSL/G.shdsl/VDSL: which one or two would be listed on the recognized list of ITLs?

An update to DSLForum01-066, the Independent Testing Labs Process, is contained inDSLForum01-234a. Progress since the March Vancouver meeting includes:

• Call for test house nomination• Web page built detailing nominated labs• Test plan progressed via interim T&I WG calls• Clarified legal issues on the mention of test equipment



• Development of first cut report template

Nominated test houses, as of June 20, 2001, are:

• ATG NAIL• CETECOM ICT Services• Henderson Communications Laboratories• KTL• Laboratoire Europeen ADSL (LEA)• Lucent Technologies• Telia ProSoft AB• TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.

On the subject of testing DSLAM and CPE, the following issues were raised and discussed: Eachwill get results for products under ITL (both pay and benefit from results). Test labs will have theirown DSLAMs for testing just modems (the template indicates what tested against and results).Should the Forum conduct trial runs to first check the consistency of the ITL’s test process? Thisissue has previously been raised; the Forum doesn’t want to do policing. The DSL Forum won’tcertify labs’ test procedures. Service providers will have confidence with certain labs. If a serviceprovider doesn’t like an ITL, can it be removed from the list? Yes, a test lab can be removed fromthe list, but not because a service provider is unhappy with it; it must continue to meet therequirements. Service providers/vendors can be ITLs. Two lists will exist: nominated test labs andrecognized test labs; the agreement between the test lab and DSL Forum must be signed before thetest lab will be recognized.

The next steps for G8 include extending the model/experiences gained with ADSL with upcomingtechnologies, like auto-configuration, G.shdsl, ADSL Annexes B and C, VDSL, etc.

Emerging DSLs Study Group

K. Atwell (Adtran) is the EDSL SG Chair. The closing summary presentation of the EDSL SG iscontained in DSLForum01-230. DSLForum01-122 contains the minutes of the EDSL SG Marchmeeting in Vancouver.

The role of the EDSL SG was affirmed, as follows:

• Facilitate FS-VDSL efforts in DSL Forum• Support new work from the SHDSL WG• Study topics from BoD:

– Next generation DSL network migration– MTU market and architecture– Legacy business services market applications

• Decide to update/extend TR-040 after FS-VDSL work is complete

After a brief review of DSLForum01-111, the glossary of DSL terms, the EDSL SG agreed that itis in need of updating. It was also agreed that it is necessary to determine how it is to be used.

FS-VDSL Work Plan

In a brief discussion addressing the update for the FS-VDSL meeting in Ennis, Ireland (June 11-13, 2001), it was reported that EDSL SG will facilitate FS-VDSL work/liaisons with the DSLForum by working jointly with other groups.



In a joint session with the Operations & Network Management WG, the TOM Model in FS0110was presented. Further, identification of TRs and WTs that will support the work of FS-VDSL wasrequested. Work will be done to upload FS110R3 as a DSL Forum contribution/liaison.

In a joint session with the Architecture WG, a joint brainstorming session in New Orleans wasrequested to look at network migration (similar to the efforts of TR-04). The informal liaison withFS-VDSL was reviewed. Note was made that the DSL Forum can expect a liaison from FS-VDSLto formally receive FS0129. DSLForum01-205 was reviewed (see below). Discussion ofDSLForum01-159 was deferred to New Orleans, in August. (See the report of the ArchitectureWG meeting for details on DSLForum01-159.)

WT-047, Aspects of VDSL Evolution

DSLForum01-205 (R. Daley, Fujitsu) proposes a migration path to VDSL-based networkarchitectures by subtending cabinet-based VDSL from central office DSLAMs. In this way theexisting infrastructure may be leveraged to provide economies of scale in the service provider /access provider and CPE domains. The architecture proposed is consistent with current FS-VDSLdefinitions. DSLForum01-228 contains a slide presentation on this proposal.

Joint Meeting with Testing & Interoperability

Contributions for the VDSL test plan, and a volunteer to serve as Editor, were solicited. A requestwas made to provide pointers to existing test plans as models for FS-VDSL. It was agreed to getFS-080 uploaded as a contribution/liaison from FS-VDSL. It was agreed to consult FS-VDSL todetermine how the Forum and FS-VDSL can work together to promote interoperability.

Most work in FS-VDSL should be completed by the end of 2001 (sunset planned by October2002). To date, all liaisons between DSL Forum and FS-VDSL have been informal; in the future,the Forum will try to post them for use. The Forum needs to obtain a copy of FS-080R1 (via S.Blackwell, the editor). FS-080R1 is based on an ETSI specification with limited bit rates (one forNorth America, the other for Europe and based on the 998 frequency plan). The document is datedearly June and includes some test procedures.

At SuperComm 2002, the Forum wants to have the same type of interop demo for VDSL that theyhad for G.shdsl at SuperComm 2001. This will be addressed via liaison to FS-VDSL (DSL Forumto do interoperability and possibly FS-VDSL to do architecture). It was suggested that a VDSLtable could be put up at the DSL Forum part of CeBIT2002. FS-VDSL has two demos: the one forPHY interop (chip-level) will be in September–October. Timing may depend on the specification.FS-VDSL may want to delete options from the ETSI spec. The second demo is a system end-to-end demo, which is planned for October–November.

Marketing

J. Fausch (Alcatel) is the Marketing Chair. The Marketing presentation to the closing plenary iscontained in DSLForum01-230.

Trade Shows and Industry Events (Joint with T&I WG)

DSLForum01-183 (J. Engström, A. Baer, L. Söderström, Ericsson), in response to some problemsduring the staging events at UNH, discusses general ways to improve the quality of the test events.



DSLForum01-193 (P. Korolkiewicz, Ericsson) presents some impressions of the DSL Forumbooth at SuperComm 2001. The booth was a success, but the author notes some areas forimprovement, several of which are also discussed below.

DSLForum01-200 (S. Valcourt, UNH) discusses the following issues related to the 2002 DSLForum Interoperability Demonstration program: proposed dates, personnel required for planningand execution of the demo, technical focus, and roadmap to ensure success of the event. Two tradeshows are proposed for DSL Forum demonstrations in 2002: CeBIT and SuperComm. Also to beconsidered are DSL Forum meetings and existing proposed DSL Forum Plugfest dates. Acompanion slide presentation to DSLForum01-200 is contained in DSLForum01-234a.

While most of the demonstrations of 2001 were very successful, there are some key roadblocks tosmooth preparation that need to be addressed. DSLForum01-200 recommends the followingchanges for the 2002 cycle:

• One backend provider should be used for all 2002 shows• One network layout should be developed for the 2002 show season, and segments should be

used for each venue, depending on the demonstration• The backend provider should provide a technical engineer to the lead team and on-site for

staging and demonstration activity• The qualification test plan needs to be determined as a separate test plan from existing DSL

Forum Plugfest Documents (PD) and referenced independently

Also, the Forum should consider a new demonstration plan that includes more than CPE andDSLAM providers in the demonstration with respect to interoperability:

• VoDSL devices• Line splitter manufacturers• Cable distribution systems

– Physical plant patching– Electronic patch panel system

• Test equipment manufacturers• Microfilter manufacturers

The following are firm dates for DSL Forum activities and proposed dates for DSL ForumPlugfests and Staging Events:

• July 30-August 2, 2001: DSL Forum Plugfest, UNH-IOL, SHDSL Annexes A & B• August 27-31, 2001: DSL Forum Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana (Test plans resolved)• September 17-21, 2001: OpenVoB Callfest, UNH-IOL, VoDSL• October 1-5, 2001: DSL Forum Plugfest, UNH-IOL, (HDSL4) (VDSL) (Annex C)?• November 5-9, 2001: DSL Forum Plugfest, UNH-IOL, (Auto-Config) (VDSL) (Annex C)?• December 3-7, 2001: DSL Forum Meeting, Munich, Germany• January 7-11, 2002: DSL Forum Plugfest, UNH-IOL, VoDSL/(DMT/SHDSL) Annexes A &

B• February 18-22, 2002: Staging Event, CeBIT, Europe (location TBD, but same AC power)• March 4-8, 2002: DSL Forum Meeting, Rome, Italy• March 13-20, 2002: CeBIT, Hannover, Germany• April 15-19, 2002: DSL Forum Plugfest, UNH-IOL, VoDSL/(DMT/SHDSL) Annexes A & B• May 13-17, 2002: Staging Event, SuperComm, United States (location TBD)• May 20-24, 2002: DSL Forum Meeting, United States (location TBD)• June 4-6, 2002: SuperComm, Atlanta, Georgia



Information/Membership Booths

• DSL World Forum, Chicago, IL, July 16-19, 2001– 10x20 informational booth– Membership reception/sponsorship– Chair for Best Practices, Tecforum, and Market Analyst session

• DSLcon Asia, Hong Kong, China, August 13-16, 2001– Nine-square meter booth– Membership reception/Conference program

• ISPCON Fall 2001, Las Vegas, NV, USA, October 9-11, 2001– 10x20 informational booth– Membership reception/Sponsorship opportunity/Conference program

• DSL World Forum Europe 2001, London, England, October 29-31, 2001– 10x20 informational booth– Membership reception/Sponsorship opportunity/Conference program

Deployment Council Update

P. Skeba (Intel) is the Deployment Council WG Chair; J. Pearce (Virtual Access) is the Vice-Chair.

• Finalized action plan for the adoption of the Market Requirements document (MRD-WT-058)– New Orleans/comment; Munich/straw ballot; Rome/letter ballot

• Identified new initiatives for the Deployment Council attention in months ahead.– Initiatives will be reviewed and prioritized consistent with BoD and Marketing/Technical

Committee priorities• Reviewed new DSL Forum Communications discipline developed by Pielle Associates

Public Relations Update

• Focused on Strategic Communications at this meeting• Message map:

– First draft of messages on key applications and benefits of DSL– Core messages for DSL Forum (Expert, Representative, Responsive)

• Target audience matrix and deliverables:– Identified superset matrix of target audiences and regions– Catalogued marketing “vehicles” and deliverables– Effort over next two months: Merge these into a coherent, integrated marketing plan for key

market segments

Mindshare Europe Campaign

C. Tal (Be Connected) is the Mindshare Europe Campaign WG Chair.

Advertising in Europe presents unique challenges: cultural/language diversity, more smallercompanies, and the current economy. The Marketing group will produce a four-minute, multi-lingual animated video (Infomercial) to be posted on the DSL Forum website, with links frommember company pages. It will feature end-user applications and benefits (DSL Family). Thedetails of the Regulator Knowledge-share Program are TBD.



Ambassador Committee Update

F. Starnberger (Ahead Communications) is the Ambassador Program WG Chair; R. Lyons(ARESCOM) is the Vice-Chair.

The Ambassador Committee has instituted pro-active Ambassador planning processes, including alisting of speaking opportunities, cross-linked to the DSL Forum event plan. Core presentationsare being developed to capture key Forum metrics and objectives (in both 3-slide and 10-slideversions). All Ambassador presentations are catalogued on the DSL Forum website. Currentlythere are twenty-five DSL Forum Ambassadors, covering 10–20 events per quarter. TheAmbassador Committee is requesting content for SHDSL, VoDSL, and VDSL.

Summit/Best Practices Update

P. LeBlanc (Aware) is the Best Practices/Summit WG Chair.

• New Orleans (August, 2001), three sessions planned:– DSL Service Bundles (Session Chair: J. Fausch, Alcatel)– MTU/MDU (Session Chair: K. Nauman/G. Bathrick, Lucent)– ILEC Service Provider Panel: Deployment issues and the DSL business case (Session

Chair: J. Janowiak)• Special session in New Orleans: Antitrust BOF• Planning session for Munich and Rome summits

G.shdsl Initial Meeting Recap

E. Brooks (Adtran) is the SHDSL WG Chair; S. Mukherjee (HyperEdge) is the Vice-Chair.

• Finalized objectives for SHDSL WG– Creation of SHDSL-focused content, creation of “DSL application matrix,” provide a

common definition for SHDSL and work towards providing MRDs focused on targetapplications for the technology WGs.

• Agreed on target applications for SHDSL– To focus on content creation & web site inputs

• Brainstormed on, and finalized three key messages for the DSL Forum pertaining to SHDSL– Designed to be used primarily by the DSL Forum PR teams

• SHDSL or G.shdsl?– G.shdsl for references to the ITU standard– Suggested use of SHDSL for the general, industry wide reference to the technology

(definition forthcoming)• Key applications:

– Voice trunking, VoDSL, web hosting, video conferencing, video post-production, RASreplacement, and VPN.

• Key messages:– SDHSL is a global standard for symmetrical DSL service. It has proven interoperability

with interoperability by design. It is capable of mass deployment as a complementarytechnology to ADSL.

– It provides improved technology for business class broadband services. It supports flexibleand easy deployment for the service provider. It is spectrally compatible with other DSLtechnologies (ADSL and VDSL). It is multi-rate capable with improved reachcharacteristics.

– It is multi-service capable. It provides extension of the application set of DSL. It allowsproviders to address multiple markets with new services. It supports legacy service transport(TDM, Frame Relay or IP). It allows integrated service bundling (voice, data, and video).



DSL Forum Meeting Roster, June 18 – 22, 2001, Oslo, Norway

Gavin Young (AdEvia) Technical Committee ChairFrank Van der Putten (Alcatel) Technical Committee Vice ChairMartin Jackson (Virata) Architecture and Transport ChairGreg Wetzel (Covad Communications) VoDSL ChairGreg Bathrick ( Lucent Technologies) Operations & Network Management ChairFred Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) Testing & Interoperability ChairDavid Greggains (Gorham & Partners) Emerging DSLs Study Group Chair

Austria Ahead Comm. Christian Dipl.- Ing. Loew [email protected] Ahead Comm. Anton Kostrej [email protected] Ahead Comm. Herbert Maierhofer [email protected] Ahead Comm. Franz Starnberger [email protected] Siemens Aleksandra Kozarev [email protected] Alcatel Stan Claes [email protected] Alcatel Guus Claessen [email protected] Alcatel Sam D'Haeseleer [email protected] Alcatel Peter Huyge [email protected] Alcatel Sven Ooghe [email protected] Alcatel Frank Van der Putten [email protected] Belgacom Koen Berteloot [email protected] Belgacom Simon Pirotte [email protected] Telindus Paul Pyck [email protected] TERAYON Jan Erreygers [email protected] Alcatel Remi Bourlon [email protected] Catena Networks Marc Doucette [email protected] Comtest Networks Martin Adcock [email protected] Mitel Semiconductor Kelvin Steeden [email protected] NHC Communications Marc Bohbot [email protected] Spirent Comm. Stephen Courtney [email protected] Intel Bent Sejer Jensen [email protected] Intel Sven Olav Lund [email protected] TDK Semiconductor Steen Henri Jensen [email protected] Pielle Consulting Carol Friend [email protected] DSLB it Hantro Oy Hannu Heusala [email protected] Elisa Communications Juhava Pasi [email protected] Profec Group Kimmo Alho [email protected] Sonera Corporation Osmo Vuorenmaa [email protected] Tellabs Arto Kinnunen [email protected] Alcatel Michele Boulard [email protected] France Telecom Jean Michel Bonnamy [email protected] France Telecom Jean-Marc Corolleur [email protected] France Telecom David Freschi [email protected] France Telecom Ivan Meriau [email protected] L.E.A. Thierry Doligez [email protected] Atlantic Telecom Jeremy Guard [email protected] AVM Martin Brueggenwirth [email protected] AVM Andreas Kollmann [email protected] Cetecom Andreas Ehre [email protected] Cetecom Thami El Idrissi [email protected] Corning Cable Sys. Wolfgang Hoffmann [email protected] Corning Cable Sys. Rainer Vogt [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Walter BeforthGermany Deutsche Telekom Guenter Dannoritzer [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Thomas Scheerbarth [email protected] ELSA Michael Schulze [email protected] Lucent Technologies Frank Witte [email protected] Marconi Comm. Wolfgang Kluge [email protected] NEC Costas Rente [email protected] Professional Multimedia

Network Sys.Ralf Boden [email protected]



Germany Siemens Thomas Gemmer [email protected] Siemens Gerhard Maegerl [email protected] Siemens Imran Ashraf Hajimusa [email protected] Siemens Sascha Lindecke [email protected] Siemens Dirk Moldenhauer [email protected] Toshiba Corp. Eugen Pfumfel [email protected] Hellenic Telecom. Org. George Chnarakis [email protected] Hellenic Telecom. Org. Spyros Polychronopoulos [email protected] Communication Authority Laszlo Barna [email protected] MDS Gateways Gary Nolan [email protected] ECI Telecom Moti Morgenstern [email protected] GlobaLoop Yifat Migdal-Steinberg [email protected] GlobaLoop Oded Weinstein [email protected] Rit Technologies Dael Govreen-Segal [email protected] Telrad Yossi Almog [email protected] Telrad Shoham Eckhous [email protected] Telrad David Migdal [email protected] Telrad Caron Tal [email protected] Aethra Vincenzo Gulla [email protected] Aethra Cristiano Lucesoli [email protected] Marconi Comm. Elisabetta Zanni [email protected] Telecom Italia Gaetano Saverio Fanelli [email protected] Telecom Italia Concita Saracino [email protected] Telecom Italia Mauro Tilocca [email protected] NEC Hiroshi Okado [email protected] NTT Corporation Akira Hayashi [email protected] NTT Corporation Yuichi Kido [email protected] NTT Corporation Katsuyoshi Okawara [email protected] NTT Corporation Yoshitsugu Tanaka [email protected] Sumitomo Elec. Ind. Masami Ueda [email protected] Toshiba Corp. Yasumasa Kikunaga [email protected] Toshiba Corp. Yasuo Ohara [email protected] Samsung Jonghoon Lim [email protected] Samsung Jeong Won Park [email protected] Intel Rob Kypriotakis [email protected] Telenor Bent Erik Granberg [email protected] Telenor Charles Michael [email protected] Telenor Harald Wiig [email protected] of China ITRI Cheng-Yi Hwang [email protected] of China ITRI Tzung-Pao Lin [email protected] Admit Design Systems Douglas Hay [email protected] Cisco Systems Justus Osude [email protected] Africa Siemens Jan Liebenberg [email protected] Korea Samsung Moon Jeong Choi [email protected] Ericsson Per-Ove Ekman [email protected] Ericsson Lars-Olof Haster [email protected] Ericsson Tom Idermark [email protected] Ericsson Vitomir Ilic [email protected] Ericsson Piotr Korolkiewicz [email protected] Ericsson Raymond Murphy [email protected] Ericsson Lina Soderstrom [email protected] Ericsson Matias Sundman [email protected] Telia AB Anne-Marie Ljungstrom [email protected] Telia AB Lars Setterstal [email protected] Telia AB Susanna Wennberg [email protected] Motorola Bernard Dugerdil [email protected] Schmid Telecom. Gerhard Wilp [email protected] AdEvia Limited James Southworth [email protected] AdEvia Limited Gavin Young [email protected] Admit Design Systems Ian Tooley [email protected] Analog Devices Antonio Zarola [email protected] Broadcom John Redford [email protected] BT Peter Adams [email protected] BT Nigel Billington [email protected]



UK BT Marcus JacksonUK BT Minesh Patel [email protected] BT Ashley Pickering [email protected] BT David Thorne [email protected] Cisco Systems Gareth McComb [email protected] Dataflex Design Comm. Jim Fitzpatrick [email protected] Dataflex Design Comm. Andrew Wheeler [email protected] Fujitsu Robert Daley [email protected] Fujitsu Steven Dennis [email protected] Fujitsu David Jones [email protected] Fujitsu Tariq Roshan [email protected] Gorham & Partners David Greggains [email protected] Intel Claus Bjoernsten [email protected] KTL Kevin Eckersall [email protected] KTL Steve Kingdom [email protected] KTL Paul Russell [email protected] NEC Georgi Petkov [email protected] Net to Net Tech. Keith Hoult [email protected] Olswang Natasha HobdayUK OVUM Tim JohnsonUK Spirent Comm. Philip Cooper [email protected] Turnstone Systems Barry Corney [email protected] Virata Corporation Jason Cresswell [email protected] Virata Corporation Martin Jackson [email protected] 2Wire Ted Fagenson [email protected] 2Wire Randy Turner [email protected] 3Com Tom Kinahan [email protected] 3Com Bruce Trumbo [email protected] Acterna Paul O'Donnell [email protected] ADTRAN Keith Atwell [email protected] ADTRAN Everett Brooks [email protected] Advanced Fibre Comm. Ketan Patel [email protected] Alcatel Rajesh Abbi [email protected] Alcatel Jay Fausch [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Rick Lyons [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Jerry Venturas [email protected] Aspex Technology Michael Abell [email protected] AT&T Laboratories Vincent Lapi [email protected] AT&T Laboratories Scott Mollica [email protected] Aware David Benini [email protected] Aware Peter LeBlanc [email protected] Bandspeed Robert Burke [email protected] BATM Tom Daly [email protected] Bel Fuse Craig Somach [email protected] BellSouth Telecom. Barbara Stark [email protected] BRECIS Comm. Sekhar Kondepudi [email protected] BRECIS Comm. Philip Rakity [email protected] Broadcom Yarran Lu [email protected] Broadxent Jim Lo [email protected] Cayman Systems John Stephens [email protected] Centillium Comm. Tom McKee [email protected] Cisco Systems Tore Olav AlmundsonUSA Cisco Systems Patrick Gili [email protected] Cisco Systems Rajiv Kapoor [email protected] Cisco Systems William Quiles [email protected] Cisco Systems Jay Shah [email protected] Comtest Networks Walt Kalin [email protected] Conexant Nick Burd [email protected] Conexant Jim Webster [email protected] Conklin Corp. Lujack Ewell [email protected] Consultant Jim Cavanagh [email protected] Copper Mt. Networks Jonathan Fellows [email protected] Copper Mt. Networks John Nevius [email protected] Covad Comm. Benjamin Cohen [email protected]



USA Covad Comm. Greg F. Wetzel [email protected] Data Connection Paul Drew [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Veronika Lau [email protected] e-Site Karen "KJ" Johnson [email protected] e-Site Bryan Way [email protected] EarthLink, Inc. Craig Newman [email protected] EarthLink, Inc. Brian Wenger [email protected] East by North Peter Macaulay [email protected] ECI Telecom Gigi Karmous-Edwards [email protected] ECI Telecom Mike Sneed [email protected] Fluke Networks Fred Kaudel [email protected] General Bandwidth Paul Carew [email protected] General Bandwidth Bhagvat Joshi [email protected] Go Digital Rick Brandt [email protected] Hewlett Packard Cindy Fishman [email protected] HyperEdge Corp. Soum Mukherjee [email protected] HyperEdge Corp. Bill Rodey [email protected] Integrated Telecom

Express, Inc.Steve Chen [email protected]

USA Intel Chris Hansen [email protected] Intel Kevin Kahn [email protected] Intel Phillip Skeba [email protected] Int’l Engr’g Consortium Tom Costello [email protected] Intertek Testing Svcs Jo Dee DeVries [email protected] Intertek Testing Svcs Brent Robinette [email protected] Legerity Steve Bretoi [email protected] LSI Logic Ralph Gee [email protected] Lucent Technologies Harry Mildonian, Jr. [email protected] mBlast Susan Mostowy [email protected] Metalink Danny Gur [email protected] Microsoft Corp. David Roberts [email protected] NEC Baldwin Ip [email protected] Net.com Tony Tung Ong [email protected] Netopia Evan Solley [email protected] Next Level Comm. Sabit Say [email protected] NightFire Software Marcille Sibbitt [email protected] Nokia Gregory Bathrick [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Henri Suyderhoud [email protected] Paradyne Peter Calderon [email protected] Paradyne Bob Scott [email protected] Qwest Comm. Dan Edeen Fax: +1.612.664.4778USA SBC Eugene Edmon [email protected] SBC Anna Salguero [email protected] SBC Tom Starr [email protected] Siemens Neal King [email protected] Simpler Networks Mark Peden [email protected] Sony Electronics George Bazylevsky [email protected] Sphere Comm. David Ward [email protected] Sprint Linda Thurber [email protected] Sprint Pete Youngberg [email protected] Sumida Joe Soriano [email protected] Symmetricom Barry Dropping [email protected] TEG Worldwide Media Ed Doody [email protected] Telcordia Tech. Karen Armington [email protected] Telcordia Tech. John Balinski [email protected] Teradyne David Groessl [email protected] Texas Instruments Michael Hanrahan [email protected] Texas Instruments Ben Wiseman [email protected] The Yankee Group Jonathan DoranUSA Tioga Technologies Craig Edwards [email protected] Tollgrade Comm. Rocky Flaminio [email protected],

[email protected] Tollgrade Comm. Wayne Lloyd [email protected] Turnstone Systems Ramon Chea [email protected]



USA TUV Rheinland of N.A. Rolf Bienert [email protected] U. of New Hampshire Matt Langlois [email protected] U. of New Hampshire Scott Valcourt [email protected] Verizon Michael Brusca [email protected] Verizon Rick Raskin [email protected] Virata Corporation Kelvin Khoo [email protected] Virtual Access John Slaby [email protected] Vitria Technology Amitabh Shah [email protected] Voce Comm. Allison Sokol [email protected] VoicePump Benjamin Dolnik [email protected] Westell Ken Burrows [email protected] Westell Mariana Hentea [email protected] Wilcom Dennis McCarthy [email protected] WorldCom Daryl Tannis [email protected]

2001 IEEE Conference onStandardization and Innovation in Information Technology

University of ColoradoBoulder, CO, USA

October 3-6, 2001

http://www.siit2001.org/

STANDARDIZATION and INNOVATION are fundamental processes in our technicaland increasingly global civilization, sometimes operating in tension and sometimes in concert with each other. The complex interplay between these two processes is still not well understood, in spite of being linked to nearly every facet of our economy, society, culture, and physical environment. In recognition of the crucial importance of improving our understanding of these processes and of their interrelationship, the SIIT International Conference was initiated in 1999 to bring together technology developers, standardization leaders, economists and social scientists from government, commerce and academia.

SIIT 2001 will explore standardization and innovation in information technology through eight sessions and a workshop with over 50 presentations.

Registration information is on the web site.



Acronym Definitions

A&T Architecture & Transport (DSL Forum Committee, formerly ATM)AAL ATM Adaptation LayerAC Alternating CurrentACS Automatic Configuration ServiceALE Automatic Link Establishment RadiosAMR Adaptive MultiRateANSI American National Standards InstituteASN Abstract Symbol NotationATM Asynchronous Transfer ModeATU-C ADSL Transceiver Unit - Central Office EndATU-R ADSL Transceiver Unit - Remote Terminal EndB-NT Broadband-Network TerminationBLES Broadband Loop Emulation ServiceBoD Board of DirectorsBOF Birds of a FeatherCAS Channel Associated SignalingCBR Constant Bit RateCCS Common Channel SignalingCeBIT Trade show in Hannover, GermanyCO Central OfficeCORBA Common Object Request Broker ArchitectureCP Customer PremisesCPE Customer Premise EquipmentCSA Canadian Standards AssociationDHCP Dynamic Host Control Protocol (RFC2131)DOCSIS Data Over Cable Service Interface SpecificationDSL Digital Subscriber LineDSLAM DSL Access MultiplexerDSLF DSL ForumDTMF Dual Tone Multi FrequencyDUT Device Under TestEDSL Emerging DSL Study Group (DSL Forum)EMS Element Management SystemEOC Embedded Operations ChannelETSI European Telecommunications Standards InstituteFCC Federal Communications Commission (U.S.)FEC Forward Error CorrectionFSAN Full Service Access NetworksFS VDSL Full Service VDSL (FSAN Committee)HomePNA Home Phoneline Networking AllianceIAD Integrated Access DeviceID IdentificationIETF Internet Engineering Task ForceIG Interoperability GroupILEC Incumbent Local Exchange CarriersILMI Integrated Local Management Interface (ATMForum)ISDN Integrated Services Digital NetworkISDN-BA ISDN Basic AccessISDN BRA ISDN Basic Rate AccessISWG Interoperability Sub Working Group (DSL Forum)ITL Independent Testing Labs



ITU International Telecommunication UnionITU-T ITU Telecommunications SectorIWF Inter-Working FunctionL2TP Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, standardized encapsulation capable of carrying multiple

PPP sessionsLAN Local Area NetworkLDAP Lightweight Directory Access ProtocolLES Loop Emulation ServiceLLC Logical Link ControlLMS Loop Management SystemMDU Multi-Dwelling UnitMIB Management Information BaseMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMRD Market Requirements DocumentMTU Maintenance Terminating UnitsNIC Network Interface CardNID Network Interface DeviceNMC Network Model CoverageNMS Network Management SystemO&NM Operations and Network Management working group (DSL Forum)OAM Operations, Administration, and MaintenancePC Personal ComputerPCI Peripheral Component InterconnectPD Proposed DraftPHY Physical LayerPOTS Plain Old Telephone ServicePoV Packet over VDSLPPP Point-to-Point ProtocolPPPoA PPP over ATMPPPoE Point to Point Protocol over EthernetPR Public RelationsPSD Power Spectral DensityPSTN Public Switched Telephone NetworkPVC Permanent Virtual CircuitQoS Quality of ServiceRAM Remote Access Multiplexer (DSL Forum)RAS Remote Access ServerRT Remote TerminalSAR Segmentation And Re-assemblySCV Specialized Codec VBRSDO Standards Development OrganizationSDSL Symmetrical high bit rate Digital Subscriber LineSET Simple Endpoint TypesSHDSL Single-line High Speed DSLSNMP Simple Network Management Protocol (IETF)SP Service ProviderSPVC Switched Permanent Virtual CircuitSSDSL Synchronized Symmetric Digital Subscriber LineSTM Synchronous Transmission ModeSVC Switched Virtual CircuitSWG Sub-Working GroupT&I Testing & Interoperability (DSL Forum Working Group)TBD To be DeterminedTCM-ISDN Time Compression Multiplexed ISDN



TIA Telecommunications Industry AssociationTMF TeleManagement ForumTR Technical ReportTS Technical SpecificationTU-C Transceiver Unit - Central Office EndUBR Unspecified Bit RateUSB Universal Serial BusVC Virtual ConnectionVDSL Very high speed DSLVoB Voice over BroadbandVoDSL Voice over DSLVPN Virtual Private NetworkWG Working GroupWOT World Ordering Team (TeleManagement Forum)WT Working Text (DSL Forum)xDSL all the different Digital Subscriber Line technologyXML eXtended Markup Language

The CSR LibrarySubscribers may order copies of documents shown in boldface type from CommunicationsStandards Review, where not controlled. $50.00 for the first document in any order, $40.00for the second, and $25.00 for each additional document in any order. Volume discountsavailable. Please contact CSR.

Documents listed with © are controlled documents. These documents are not for sale, but wecan provide you with the author’s contact information. ITU and ETSI meeting documents arealso not for sale, but we can provide you with the author’s contact information.

We have a large library of standards work in process and can help you locate otherinformation you may need.

CSR recommends that you obtain published standards from Global Engineering Documents.Tel: 800 854-7179, +1 303 792-2181, Fax : +1 303 397-7935, http://global.ihs.com



Communications Standards Review Copyright Policy

Copying of individual articles/reports for distribution within an organization is not permitted, unlessthe user holds a multiple copy license from CSR. The single user electronic version may bemounted on a server whose access is restricted both to a single organization and to one user at atime. You are welcome to forward your single user electronic copy (deleting it on your system) toanother user in your organization. CSR offers an Intranet subscription which permits unlimitedcopies to the subscribing organization.

Year 2001 Standards Committee Meeting SchedulesPlease see the updated calendar at http://www.csrstds.com/mtgs.html.

Visit the CSR Web Pages: http://www.csrstds.comThe Web Pages include an on-line store (order subscriptions and reports), an updatedTelecom Acronym Definitions list, updated meeting schedules, background material ontelecom standards and CSR (the company), data sheets on both CSR technical journals, andmore.

Communications Standards Reviewregularly covers the following committee meetings:

TIA TR-30 Data Transmission Systems &Equipment

TR-41 User Premises Telephone EquipmentRequirements

ITU-T SG15 WP1 Network AccessSG15 WP2 Network Signal ProcessingSG16 Multimedia

ETSI AT Access and TerminalsTIPHON Voice over InternetTM6 Transmission & Multiplexing

DSL Forum xDSL, Access Technologies

Communications Standards Review (ISSN 1064-3907) reports are published within days after the relatedstandards meetings. Publisher: Elaine J. Baskin, Ph.D. Technical Editor: Ken Krechmer. Subscription Manager:Denise Hylen Lai. Copyright © 2001, Communications Standards Review. All rights reserved. Subscriptions:$795.00 per year worldwide, electronic format; $995.00 paper format. Corporate Intranet subscriptions (Corporatelicense for unlimited copies) are $2,150.00. Submit articles for consideration to: Communications StandardsReview, 757 Greer Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA. Tel: +1-650-856-9018. Fax: +1-650-856-6591.e-mail: [email protected]. Web: http://www.csrstds.com. 32731