CSR Volume 12 #2, January 19, 2001

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW

Volume 12, Number 2 January 19, 2001

REPORT OF THE DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING, DECEMBER 5 - 8, 2000, PORTLAND, OR The following report represents the view of the reporter and is not the official, authorized minutes of the meeting. DSL Forum Technical Committee Meeting, Decembe r 5 - 8, 2000, Portland, OR ...... 3 Architecture and Transport Working Group...... 3 WT-053 v.2, Protocols at the U Interface for Accessing Data Networks Using ATM/DSL.3 WT-054, Service Models and Requirements for Delivery of Real-Time Multi-Service over DSL...... 4 WT-057, Requirements for SVC Deployment over ATM/DSL Networks...... 4 Living list: Architecture...... 5 Transport Sub-Working Group...... 5 WT-049 v.2, ATM Transport over ADSL...... 5 VoDSL (Voice over DSL) Working Group...... 6 WT-043 Annex B v.7, Requirements for Voice Over DSL Access Facilities to Multi-Service Broadband Networks (MBN)...... 6 WT-056, VoDSL Management Architecture and Requirements...... 6 WT-055, Addendum to TR-036 Annex A, Requirements for Voice over DSL (BLES over FUNI)...... 8 PD-001, Channelized VoDSL...... 8 STM Transport over VoDSL...... 9 Operations & Network Management Working Group...... 9 Liaisons 9 Loop Management Systems...... 9 DSL Everywhere...... 10 Update to WT-046, CORBA Specification for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface...... 11 WT-050, DSL Service Flow-thru Fulfillment Management Overview...... 11 Liaisons 12 CPE Auto-Configuration...... 13 Summary of the McLean Meeting, October 4, 2000...... 13 Summary of the Heathrow Interim Meeting, November 2, 2000...... 16 Report of This Meeting...... 16 Testing & Interoperability Working Group...... 17 Liaisons 18 Updated ITU-T Draft Recommendations Review...... 19 Test Plans 19 Joint Session with G8 IG...... 20 Joint Session with Architecture & Transport...... 21 Next Steps22 Continued on next page

G8 Interoperability Group...... 22 Joint G8 Session with the Testing & Interoperability Working Group...... 23 Emerging DSLs Study Group...... 25 WT-047, Aspects of VDSL Evolution...... 25 Joint Meeting with FS-VDSL Committee...... 26 Work Extension for DSLF...... 26 VDSL Work Plan Proposals...... 27 Performance Management Break-Out...... 27 Fault Management Breakout...... 28 Marketing 29 Trade Shows and Industry Events...... 29 Deployment Council...... 30 Public Relations...... 31 European Mindshare Campaign...... 32 Ambassador Program...... 32 DSL Forum Websites...... 32 eCommerce Committee...... 33 Marketing Summit...... 33 DSL Forum Meeting Roster, December 5 - 8, 2000, Portland, OR...... 34 Acronym Definitions...... 44 Communications Standards Review New Copyright Policy...... 46

2 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW REPORT OF THE DSL FORUM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING, DECEMBER 5 - 8, 2000, PORTLAND, OR G. Young (AdEvia Limited) is the DSL Forum (formerly ADSL Forum) Technical Committee Chair. F. Van der Putten (Alcatel) is the Vice Chair. The DSL Forum website address is: http://www.adsl.com. The closing plenary report from this meeting is contained in DSLForum00- 452 (D. Greggains, Gorham & Partners). DSLForum00-346 contains the minutes of the August - September DSL Forum plenary meeting held in Dublin, Ireland. The first meeting of the DSL Forum was held six years ago, on December 8-9, 1994. This meeting was the 25th meeting of the DSL Forum; it had the second highest number of participants ever: 480. The Forum currently has a record number of members (407) and a record number of marketing participants (70). This was the second meeting of the Service Provider Action Council, which also had a record number of participants (120). The Chair reminded participants that the annual membership subscription renewal is due by the end of February 2001. Election of the Director will be held at the annual meeting in Vancouver, BC, March 12-16, 2001. Only members current with their dues will be able to vote. The Chair reported that DSL subscription in the year 2000 is over two million customers in both North America and Asia (a recount is being done in Europe). DSLForum00-381 (G. Young, AdEvia) provides the latest revision of the technical roadmap for the DSL Forum. It presents a top-level overview of the structure of the technical committee together with a summary of the key objectives, priorities, and time scales for the individual technical working groups. This was reviewed; it was agreed that the status of the work needs tuning, e.g., updates to TR-029. Two BoFs on G.shdsl and ATIS were held. At the G.shdsl BoF, vendors and carriers spoke of the status, attributes, and applications for G.shdsl. At the ATIS BoF, a representative of ATIS spoke of what ATIS is, the value of coordination with the DSL Forum, and that ATIS also provides meeting facilitation services to the industry. No specific DSL Forum actions resulted from either BoF. Architecture and Transport Working Group M. Jackson (Virata) is the A&T (formerly ATM) WG Chair. B. Dugerdil (Motorola) is the Vice- Chair. D. Allan (Nortel) is the Chair of the Architecture sub working group. R. Gade (ECI Telecom) is the Chair of the Transport sub working group. The A&T WG presentation is contained in DSLForum00-452.

WT-053 v.2, Protocols at the U Interface for Accessing Data Networks Using ATM/DSL The focus of WT-053 is to document common current and expected (in the near-term) user plane protocols that are carried over ATM over DSL, independent of transmission layer line code at the “U reference point” for the application of access to data networks. It deals specifically with connection attributes at L2/2.5, not service attributes. It will augment information contained in TRs that make reference to and are based on TR-012, Broadband service architecture for access to legacy data networks over ADSL (PPP over ATM), i.e., TR-017 (ATM over ADSL), TR-018 (References and requirements for CPE architectures for data access), TR-025 (Core network architecture for access to legacy data networks over ADSL), and TR-032 (CPE architecture recommendations for access to legacy data networks). This series of Recommendations will be dependent on existing standards, soon-to-be standards, and informational RFCs.

DSLForum00-409 (B. Trumbo, P. Silverman, 3Com) presents a way of multiplexing multiple independent PPP sessions originating at user devices (e.g., PCs) using a single PVC carried over the DSL line. It proposes to use L2TP to multiplex the multiple PPP sessions, and to transport L2TP directly over the ATM layer on the DSL circuit. L2TP is a standardized encapsulation capable of carrying multiple PPP sessions. It has a defined, very lightweight layering over AAL5 for use with ATM transport. It was agreed to incorporate this into WT-053. DSLForum00-459 (B. Trumbo, 3Com) contains the PowerPoint slides for this contribution. The decision to go to straw ballot was deferred to the mailing list. It is hoped that a straw ballot will emerge from the March, Vancouver meeting, with a letter ballot from the June, Oslo meeting.

WT-054, Service Models and Requirements for Delivery of Real-Time Multi- Service over DSL ADSL-based access is well positioned to deliver real-time multimedia flows which encompass voice, data and video. Generic standards for the transport layer and the control layer are being ratified to support communications networks that deliver such services. WT-054 seeks to leverage the existing ADSLF documents and other available standards to offer architectural guidelines and service models for the delivery of real time multimedia services. DSLForum00-401 (M. Zimmerman, ADC) is revision 0.1 of the baseline text for WT-054. In a joint A&T/VoDSL session, it was reviewed and discussed, and then reconciled with the direction of TR-036 Annex B (see the VoDSL WG report, below). There was a call for new input to this WT. It was noted that VoDSL work would be useful input. Agreement of a straw ballot is projected for the Oslo meeting in June.

WT-057, Requirements for SVC Deployment over ATM/DSL Networks WT-057 was discussed in a joint session with VoDSL. DSLForum00-402 (M. Zimmerman, ADC; C. Taniguchi, SBC Technology Resources) was adopted as the baseline text for WT-057 revision 0.1, with guidance to the Editor. ATM is a main transport vehicle for DSL services. It is beneficial to augment the ATM connectivity models to support multiple services and architecture needs. In the August - September Dublin meeting, A&T WG initiated WT-057, with the following scope: • Identify applications that benefit from SVC • Define network requirements and implications • Generic procedures that set/tear ATM signaling • Applicable standards • Consider lightweight variants • Implications on Auto-configuration • Reference to other ADSL WTs (WT-048, WT-054, TR-017, WT-049) This baseline text is in accordance with this scope of work. It suggests that switched connections can enhance scalability, offer superior structure for several enhanced services, and ease the network provisioning. It is envisioned that switched and non-switched architecture will coexist and will together be optimized for different scenarios and services. In Dublin, SVC implications across the DSL reference model were discussed (DSLForum00-249, M. Zimmerman, ADC). DSLForum00-390 (E. Edmon, C. Taniguchi, F. Jia, SBC Technology Resources; M. Zimmerman, ADC) presents two architecture options (SVC end-to-end or end-to-

4 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW access node) in which ATM SVC may be utilized in a DSL access network. It highlights the potential values that ATM SVC may bring to DSL service operators/users under each architecture, and identifies additional functions/operation issues that require further work. DSLForum00-391, Use of switched virtual circuits for voice over DSL services (E. Edmon, C. Taniguchi, F. Jia, SBC Technology Resources; M. Zimmerman, ADC), correlates the two architectures presented in DSLForum00-390 to voice over DSL applications and highlights the associated benefits and limitations. These two contributions were posted to the living list for discussion when a properly structured baseline document emerges. There was a call for new input to WT-057.

Living list: Architecture • DSLForum00-008, semi-permanent PPP connections (D. Allan, Nortel): agreed, for TR-025 update • DSLForum00-124, Deutsche Telekom comments on straw ballot on WT-032, Premises architecture recommendations: for consideration on WT-032 update • On completion of WT-053, TR-025 and TR-032 will be revised: agreed • DSLForum00-197, Signaling protocol implications /trust models (D. Allan, T. Taylor, Nortel, Orlando, May 2000): for further study Next Steps for the Architecture WG include: • Trust models and security, call for input • Need to explore how to adopt architectural issues from emerging DSL work into architecture – Some VDSL work is useful input into WT-054 – A joint session in Vancouver could be useful Transport Sub-Working Group R. Gade (ECI Telecom) is the TSWG Chair. The presentation for the TSWG is contained in DSLForum00-452.

WT-049 v.2, ATM Transport over ADSL WT-049 v.2 is an update to TR-017, ATM over ADSL (March 1999); it includes recent developments in the ATM Forum and other groups. The scope for this report is to provide a specification for the transport of ATM over ADSL that is consistent with the ADSL PHY Recommendations, i.e., ANSI T1.413, ITU-T G.992.1 (G.dmt), and ITU-T G.992.2 (G.lite). T1.413 and G.992.1 specify dual latency mode as optional and G.992.2 specifies single latency mode in the interleaved path only. Future issues of this technical report will seek to preserve backward compatibility with this document. This specification provides descriptions of the access node (AN) and broadband network- termination (B-NT) functions. It includes recommendations for dynamic rate repartitioning (DRR) and dynamic rate change (DRC) in a dual latency environment for ATM over ADSL. ATM layer effects of rate change transitions and power management are for further study. Dynamic behaviors of ADSL (i.e., DRA and DRR) for a B-NT1 are for further study. DSLForum00-418 (B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; S. Abbas, Centillium; D. Langston, SigmaTel; R. Kroninger, ADC; B. Dugerdil, Motorola; V. Davar, Legerity; R. Segev, Ikanos) addresses the dynamic rate repartitioning (DRR) section of WT-049 v.2. Due to DRR, the variable nature of the

ADSL link capacity between sub-channels may pose issues to the ATM network management and signaling functions. This contribution summarizes the techniques for handling this physical layer condition and proposes text for addition to the working text. It was agreed to include this in WT- 049, noting that DRR requires further work on architectures, management, and configuration. WT-049 was discussed in a joint session with VoDSL. Inclusion of STM channel with WT-049 was discussed; agreed text will be included in WT-049. It was agreed not to move WT-049 to straw ballot, given the changes made at this meeting. The intention is to move WT-049 to straw ballot at the March meeting. There is a call for contributions on: • DRR with multiple bearer channels on ADSL • The impact on ATM QoS and CAC(Connection Admission Control) • The impact on architectures, management, and configuration. VoDSL (Voice over DSL) Working Group G. Wetzel (Covad) is the Chair of the VoDSL WG. The VoDSL WG Editor is P. Simmons (Starnet). The VoDSL presentation for the closing plenary is in DSLForum00-452. DSLForum00-348 contains the minutes of the VoDSL WG August – September meeting in Dublin, Ireland. Work on SVC support for VoDSL (WT-057) was discussed in a joint meeting with the Architecture WG. This work will continue. (See A&T WG report, above)

WT-043 Annex B v.7, Requirements for Voice Over DSL Access Facilities to Multi-Service Broadband Networks (MBN) DSLForum00-386 (D. Ward, Sphere Communications) provides the baseline text for WT-043 (TR-036 Annex B). The scope of this annex is to define the voice bearer channel requirements for delivering POTS or ISDN equivalent telephony service for an endpoint attached to a packet broadband network over a DSL. Calls to or from the endpoint are dynamically established on a per-call basis using session control that is independent of the bearer services. There are two call models: (1) a subscriber endpoint connected to the PSTN via the broadband network and, (2) two or more subscribers all connected via native signaling and bearer to one or more packet broadband networks. This contribution organizes previous work effort into a structure consistent with TR-036 and its Annex A; it takes into account the scope that was agreed in Dublin. WT-043 Annex B progressed at this meeting. The scope was re-worked, and an outline/table of contents was added (DSLForum01-003, D. Ward, Sphere Communications). The focus will be on architecture, requirements, and configurations of bearers across the U interface. It was agreed to use the proposed call models (e.g., ATM/H.248, VoIP/H.248+SIP, VoIP/H.323) to determine what flows cross the U interface. This Annex will not address the call control aspects, but rather will focus on what is required to support those models at the bearer level. Several issues are outstanding: • For VoIP, should voice be carried on a second PVC to leverage ATM QoS or on a single PVC? If a single PVC, how are TR-036 quality requirements met? • Are there particular requirements, e.g., loss, needed to support an H.248 signaling channel?

WT-056, VoDSL Management Architecture and Requirements The DSL Forum VoDSL broadband loop emulation services (BLES) and the ATM Forum loop emulation service (LES) recommendations specify a method of transporting packetized voice over

DSL circuits. This has gathered significant support in the industry. Providing good network management would speed up the acceptance of the LES specification. WT-056 proposes the architecture and requirements for management of the central office interworking function device (CO-IWF). The actual management information base (MIB) definition is being developed in the ATM Forum, as additions to the LES specifications. WT-056 was discussed in a joint VoDSL/Operations & Network Management meeting. The following contributions were discussed, and edits to the working text were made; WT-056 is progressing satisfactorily. A call for contributions on fault management of TR-036 Annex A was made. DSLForum00-392 (R. Ben-Michael, T. Chu, Coreon) contains proposed modifications to the text of WT-056 to include recent developments in the ATM Forum, corrections, and simplifications and removal of redundancies. This text is proposed as the new WT-056 v.1.1; it includes change marks against WT-056 v.1, with editorial comments to explain the changes. DSLForum00-393, Proposal for an introduction and scope for WT-056 (R. Ben-Michael, T. Chu, Coreon), proposes an end-to-end management architecture, and a framework for management requirements for BLES CP-IWF and CO-IWF based solutions. Given this framework, it proposes that the WT-056 configuration management section be modified to include a new concept: cross- connect between narrowband and broadband. DSLForum00-317 (M. Taylor, CopperCom, Editor) is the baseline text: MIB for LES using AAL2; it captures the consensus view from the interim email meeting held August 25 – September 1, 2000. DSLForum00-404 (T. Chu, Coreon), a proposal made to the ATM Forum for an SNMP MIB for the LES CO-IWF (ATMForum/00-0433), was presented for information. A framework for a MIB for the CO-IWF (ATMForum/00-0339) was adopted by the ATM Forum as a work item for their LES phase 2 project; the management architecture and requirements are addressed in the DSL Forum under WT-056. DSLForum00-404 is an update to ATMForum/00-0339. It incorporates comments from the October meeting of the ATM Forum. The major changes are as follows: • A high level description of the end-to-end network management architecture is added. • The narrow-band cross connect is not within the scope of the LES CO-IWF MIB; the functional model of the CO-IWF is updated to reflect this. Some new components are added. • Relationships to other MIBs are made more explicit. • Parameters that deal with the AAL2 trunk specification are removed. Only LES specific parameters are addressed. • The AAL2 VCC general parameters table and LES specific parameters table are consolidated into a single table. • A table of collected statistics is added. Statistics collection is at the VCC level and the parameters collected are the same from LES-MIB-01.01. The intent is to maintain consistency with the LES-MIB. • So far, no additional traps are identified, but a placeholder section is added. DSLForum00-375 (T. Chu, R. Ben-Michael, Coreon) discusses the requirements for fault management of the BLES CO-IWF. DSLForum00-241 and DSLForum00-242, presenting the Coreon view on the requirements on configuration management and performance management for the MIB of the CO-IW. In Dublin, a Working Text was assigned (DSLF WT-056), based on contributions 241 and 242. DSLForum00-375 discusses the requirements for fault management. This is focused on the case where the VCC is a PVC and the CIDs are statically mapped.

WT-055, Addendum to TR-036 Annex A, Requirements for Voice over DSL (BLES over FUNI) The text of TR-036 Annex A includes text in section A.1.3 that refers to AAL2 over ATM and FRF.11 over IP voice trunking, but it does not include text referring to AAL2 over TR-003 Packet mode DSL. This is an important technique that is widely used in existing deployments of DSL, and it would be a major omission if WT-043 Annex A were not to describe it. This addendum to Annex A contains text to be inserted into three parts of Annex A: • Additional overview text to be inserted into the Annex A Introduction. This provides an overview of AAL2 over TR-003 Packet mode. • A new subsection for Annex A 1.3. These six paragraphs and table describe the methodology in sufficient detail to allow VoDSL manufacturers to implement the method. • Some additions to the existing list of references in Annex A. Straw ballot votes from Northpoint, EarthLink, Siemens, Copper Mountain Networks, GlobeSpan, and WorldCom were received on WT-055; all were for Approval, without comment. No additional comments were received during the meeting. It was agreed to send WT-055 to letter ballot.

PD-001, Channelized VoDSL PD-001 is a proposed draft for a third method for transporting voice over DSL called “channelized voice over DSL (CVoDSL).” Intended to complement the BLES and MBN paradigms, CVoDSL presents a simple, cost efficient migration path from a legacy network to a new generation network. It also adds efficient support of a legacy network using a simplified inter-working function. It delivers high-speed data and POTS plus multiple voice and dial-up data/fax modem lines on a single copper pair. It transports derived voice lines at the DSL physical layer while maintaining both POTS and full-rate or G.lite DSL data access. This approach eliminates the need for packetization of voice traffic over the copper pair into upper layer protocols such as ATM and IP, yielding several advantages useful for offering a toll quality residential VoDSL solution. CVoDSL reserves a portion of the total DSL bandwidth to voice, while allocating the remaining bandwidth to other applications (e.g., web surfing, streaming video, etc.). When using PCM with no compression, each voice channel consumes 64 kbit/s of bandwidth in each direction without significant overhead. ADPCM voice compression can also be used to reduce bandwidth consumption to 32 kbit/s per voice line. The voice bandwidth can be dynamically allocated, so that when the voice lines are not in use, the bandwidth is utilized for data traffic. DSLForum00-361 (R. Segev, Ikanos; C. Milbrandt, Cisco; S. Abbas, Centillium; B. Wiseman, Texas Instruments; V. Davar, Legerity; D. Hochberg, Telrad; D. Benini, Aware; R. Kroninger, ADC; L. Qin, Nokia; R. Wendt, Advance Fiber; B. Jenness, Siemens Broadband Access; J. Choghi, Broadxent; D. Langston, SigmaTel; M. Magnusson, Catena) discusses the benefits of CVoDSL. It illustrates that the CVoDSL method offers significant advantages and benefits for NSPs and system vendors alike for residential VoDSL applications. It asserts that CVoDSL can promote the rapid deployment of each of the three VoDSL methods and can complement successful deployment of BLES and MBN based networks. It recommends that the VoDSL WG create an Annex C to TR-036 addressing the requirements for CVoDSL and move PD-001 forward to working text status. DSLForum00-440 (D. Frankel, Jetstream; P. Carew, General Bandwidth) captures some of the issues around technical completeness, technical soundness, and cost vs. benefit associated with the CVoDSL proposed draft. It notes that in each of the recent Forum meetings where this proposal has been discussed, a number of technical and economic questions have been raised. Many of

8 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW these issues have not been addressed, and the proposed draft remains incomplete. Further, the DSL Forum has already developed and approved other mechanisms for accomplishing voice over DSL. This proposal offers a new way to get the same job done. Supplemental approaches, such as this one, need to offer more than just incremental benefits in limited circumstances; they must offer compelling benefits in dominant circumstances and demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing approach(es). The CVoDSL proposal has not yet passed this test. An issues list was created and added to PD-001. Issues will be discussed via email. Companies are asked to identify issues of which they need resolution to proceed to WT. It was noted that technical issues need not be a deciding point to move a PD to WT. Issues with no identified companies asking for resolution will be removed in Vancouver in March. It was agreed that to move PD-001 to WT status, consensus is needed on what problem CVoDSL solves that TR-036 does not.

STM Transport over VoDSL A call for contributions on STM mode VoDSL to further identify and quantify benefits of STM mode over existing BLES was made. E-mail discussion is expected to clarify issues items and identify companies associated with each issue. Operations & Network Management Working Group G. Bathrick (Nokia) is the Chair and P. Adams (British Telecom) is the Vice-Chair. DSLForum00-467 contains the report of this O&NM WG meeting. DSLForum00-353 contains the minutes of the August - September O&NM WG meeting in Dublin, Ireland. The O&NM WG is primarily focused on provisioning, fault management, and the element management layer to network management layer interface. It is concerned with operational, network management and process aspects of operating an ADSL-based access network.

DSLForum00-302 is a copy of the liaison letter sent to the chairs of the IETF ADSL working group suggesting changes to the HDSL2/SHDSL draft MIB before the last call is made; it was presented for information. It proposes seven additional/modified attributes.

Loop Management Systems The LMS is a vital new network element that directly addresses access providers’ needs to scale to meet DSL market demands by automating provisioning, test access, loop qualification and testing functions. A new focus group has been formed within the O&NM WG to provide the basic definition, technical requirements, and interoperability criteria for LMS. The facilitator of the new LMS FG is M. Lavoie (Simpler Networks).

DSLForum00-354 (J. Teixeira, NHC Communications) proposes a working text contents list for LMS standards. It was generated after a teleconference discussion by the focus group. O&NM WG discussion of this list yielded the following comments: • Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (components of the LMS) were removed because they were based on one product. • A suggestion was made to include material on how to give different providers access in a secure way. • The document needs to focus on requirements, not specific implementation.

The LMS FG met informally during the Forum meetings to work on the contents list in more detail. At an ad hoc meeting, the Loop Management document’s architecture and table of contents was provided for group review. Requests from the group included removal of vendor information from the document; and breaking down the LMS functions into more abstract elements. There was debate whether this document was a formal working text or a technical white paper. The next decision point will be in Vancouver. M. Fargano, the T1M1 Chair, gave an overview of T1M1 and its work. DSLForum00-462 is a liaison letter from M. Fargano on the coordination of appropriate DSL Forum/T1M1 OAM&P work efforts. This letter provides some background information on T1M1, and outlines T1M1’s major initiative areas. It lists common CORBA documents available, including their web addresses, as well as relevant work currently in progress, and shows the T1M1 meeting schedule of the coming year. T1M1 meeting notices and the meeting calendar are posted on the T1 website at http://www.t1.org.

DSL Everywhere D. Modzelewski (RealTech), the facilitator of the DSL Everywhere focus group, gave a presentation on DSL Everywhere issues (DSLForum00-449). He reiterated the original goal of the focus group, which is to identify methods to extend broadband coverage. To accomplish this, DSL Forum needs to prepare a marketing message, as well as stimulate vendors to develop more efficient solutions and stimulate carriers to expand deployments. He noted that the current maximum reaches, in feet, of xDSL variants are as follows:

ADSL 18,000 IDSL 22,000 SDSL 10,000 HDSL 12,000 VDSL 4,000

The contributors to the DSL Everywhere draft report are: • Improved loop qualification: G. Carter (Hekimian) • Loop extension: K. Atwell (Adtran) • Mid-span repeater: K. Atwell (Adtran), B. Dropping (Symmetricom) • Improved ADSL: S. Abbas (Centillium) • G.shdsl: K. Atwell (Adtran) • Next generation DLC: M. Zimmerman (ADC) • DLC Line card: G. Bolton (Catena) • Broadband loop carrier: G. Bolton (Catena) • Remote access multiplexer: S. Harris (ECI Telecom) • General Editor: D. Modzelewski (RealTech) The contributions format to the report is organized as follows: Description of architecture/technique, Advantages, Implementation and deployment issues, Operational issues and status, and Network management issues. The current format of the report is comprised of an Introduction and Survey of methods for extending the reach of DSL, and a Presentation of alternative methods. The proposed format will include, as well, an Analysis of the applicability and potential impact of alternative methods in real-world carrier networks.

DSLForum00-292 (T. Starr, SBC) contains the slides of the August 2000 DSL Everywhere BOF.

DSLForum00-380 (D. Modzelewski, RealTech Systems) consists of technical contributions solicited and received from several sources that offer architectural solutions and techniques for extending DSL coverage to help service providers deploy DSL Everywhere. The contributions contained in this report address the following topics: • Improved loop qualification techniques • Loop extension • Mid-span repeater • Remote access multiplexer • DLC linecard • Broadband loop carrier • Next generation DLC • G.shdsl Discussion revealed that some areas need additional material, modification, and/or clarification as follows: • Remove list of manufacturers because of anti-trust issues and the fact that it is difficult to be comprehensive/fair • Loop qualification: Can the document quantify the improvement in coverage obtained by various line qualification techniques? Other DSL types can be added, if someone wants to contribute. Debate occurred on how to ensure that performance claims are reasonable. • Loop extension: It was suggested that this should cover multi-pair techniques to extend the range. • DSL repeaters: Spectrum management is the key issue • Remote Access Multiplexers. Need to refer to spectrum management issues • DLC line cards: More up-to-date information on the regulatory situation is available • Coordination of the last three sections is needed due to many similarities A joint meeting with Marketing in March was suggested, to look at how to exploit DSLForum00- 380. It was decided to turn this document into a white paper rather than a Recommendation.

Update to WT-046, CORBA Specification for ADSL EMS-NMS Interface DSLForum00-428 (R. Abbi, A. Tuzel, Alcatel; A. Mayer, K, Armington, Telcordia) proposes revisions to the IDL definition for the performance management section based on recent changes in the related definitions in the ATM Forum. This contribution was accepted; it was approved to move to straw ballot. It was agreed to draft a liaison to T1M1 requesting that they provide straw letter ballot comments on WT-46 by the March, Vancouver meeting (DSLForum00-461).

WT-050, DSL Service Flow-thru Fulfillment Management Overview WT-050 recommends a normalized set of interactions that enable the automation of service fulfillment business processes between the operational entities that cooperate to provide the end-to- end DSL service. It addresses the service fulfillment activities necessary to provide data services only. It is extensible to support interactions for service assurance and billing, value-added services such as VoDSL, and management of other forms of broadband access.

Straw letter ballots voting to Approve WT-050 v.4, without comment, were received from Vitria Technology, NightFire Software, General Bandwidth, EarthLink, WorldCom, Deutsche Telekom, GlobeSpan, and Nortel. Copper Mountain abstained - no comment (DSLForum00-435). Fujitsu voted to Approve, with the following comment (DSLForum00-389): “4.1 Service Fulfillment currently excludes pre-qualification and acceptance of intent to provide service subject to pre qualification. This section mentions ‘determining whether service can be provided’ as a part of the service fulfillment function in line 1, then excludes ‘Pre order and pre qualification’ in paragraph 3. Pre qualification is a key part of the service provisioning process. We would like to see a conditional order state in the chart on page 15.” This was accepted as a change to the process flow diagram. The working text will be modified as above and go to letter ballot. DSLForum00-441 (A. Shah, Vitria Technology; K. Johnson, e-Site; M. Sibbitt, NightFire Software) defines the first set of several information flows that enable automation of the DSL service business-to-business interfaces between various business entities involved in providing DSL service. WT-050 presents a protocol-independent interaction model to enable standardized flow-through of end-to-end interactions for fulfillment of DSL service. DSLForum00-441 extends the interaction model introduced in WT-050, by defining the data elements which comprise the request, response, and notification messages identified for each interaction in WT-050. DSLForum00-441 does not attempt to define the structure of messages. As such, things like “message header,” message “routing information,” etc. are not included in this specification. Only the data elements necessary to carry the information to be exchanged between operational entities are included. It was decided to create a new WT from DSLForum00-441. The goal is to be ready to go to straw ballot from Vancouver with this document. A weekly teleconference on Tuesdays and a focus group meeting was scheduled to progress the work.

Liaisons Based on an affirmative verbal communications, it was agreed to send a liaison to the TeleManagement Forum (DSLForum00-466) as a follow up to previous liaisons to TMF for DSL- Service-Inflow and NMS/EMS interface initiatives which TMF had not responded to. DSLForum00-319 is a liaison from Ordering and Billing Forum on WT-050; it asks a number of questions about WT-50. DSLForum00-442 is a draft of a liaison letter to OBF in response to the issues and questions raised in DSLForum00-319. It was approved after some modifications (DSLForum00-464). DSLForum00-444, Definitions of Managed Objects for VDSL Lines (S. Baillie, U. Bonollo, NEC Australia; R. Ray, Verilink), is an IETF Internet draft. It defines an experimental portion of the MIB module for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects used for managing VDSL interfaces. It specifies a MIB module in a manner that is both compliant to the SNMPv2 SMI, and semantically identical to the peer SNMPv1 definitions. It was presented for information. O&NM WG discussed and agreed to work with ETSI, ANSI, and the VDSL Coalition to take on a work item to document requirements of VDSL management. The proposed timeline for this work

12 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW is: first draft by Vancouver in March, straw ballot by Oslo in June, or New Orleans in August. It was also agreed to request that IETF take the ASN.1 work. DSLForum00-460 is a liaison to the IETF: the DSL Forum seeks to work with the IETF to develop a comprehensive set of management specifications for VDSL. DSL Forum has begun the task for developing requirements in alliance with other industry fora and industry bodies; DSL Forum recommends that the IETF develop the ASN.1 specification based on these requirements. DSL Forum asks that IETF consider adding additional enumerations to the “adslTransmissionModeType” object as defined in draft-ietf-adslmib-adslext-05.txt for support of G.992.1 Annex H. In addition, DSL Forum believes that the enumeration for Annex C in “Hdsl2ShdslTransmissionModeType” textual convention of draft-ietf-adslmib-hdsl2-06.txt is not applicable and should be removed. It was agreed to send an informational email to FS-VDSL, ANSI, ETSI, and ITU providing the intent of the working group in regard to VDSL Management. DSLForum00-395 (Sumitomo Electric, Toshiba, NEC) contains a request to support G.992.1 Annex H in the draft ADSL lines MIB extension. G.992.1 Annex H is titled Specific Requirements for a Synchronized Symmetrical DSL (SSDSL) system operating in the same cable binder as ISDN as defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.961 Appendix III (Time compression multiplexing ISDN). CPE Auto-Configuration The CPE Auto-configuration is a sub-working group of the Operations and Network Management WG and is chaired by J. Stephens (Cayman Systems). DSLForum00-452 contains presentation to the closing plenary of the CPE Auto-configuration sessions at this meeting. DSLForum00-322 contains the minutes of the CPE Auto-configuration October 4, 2000 interim meeting held in McLean, Virginia. DSLForum00-321 lists the attendees at that meeting. DSLForum00-343 contains the minutes of the November 2 interim meeting of the CPE Auto-configuration WG held in Heathrow, England. DSLForum00-342 contains the presentations from that meeting. Summaries of the interim meetings are included below. WT-048, CPE Auto-configuration, defines a set of parameters to be used for configuring and/or provisioning of DSL customer premise equipment (CPE) connection parameters, and recommends protocols for the transport of these parameters. The current working text is oriented toward an environment where ATM is used to provide the connection between the network and the CPE. The document also describes an initial, but not complete, set of DSL service deployment scenarios from which the parameters are partially derived. The current working text WT-048 provides for auto-provisioning of VoDSL service to utilize a layer-2 ATM transport. The actual VoDSL protocol management is out of scope for working text WT-048, but full auto-provisioning of the service “transport” layer is supported.

Summary of the McLean Meeting, October 4, 2000 DSLForum00-309 (D. Allan, Nortel; P. Silverman, 3Com; B. Stark, Bell South; J. Nevius, Copper Mountain Networks; S. Rahmanian, Fujitsu Network Communications; H. Mildonian, Lucent; D. Grossman, Motorola; G. Bathrick, Nokia; C. Mele, Paradyne; A. Elwahab, ShareGate; D. Ward, Sphere Communications; D. Hochberg; Telrad Networks; M. Borden, TollBridge Technologies; J. M. Slaby, Virtual Access; J. Ronk, Westell) discusses the use of DHCP for auto-configuration.

DSLForum00-309 notes that there has been much discussion in the DSL Forum on the topic of service and layer specific auto-configuration. Much of this discussion has attempted to impose requirements that required definition of comprehensive mechanisms for configuring and managing relatively high-end CPE. Further, this discussion has assumed that, for a mass market retail model, NSPs will wish to perform complex configuration and management of a broad spectrum of deployed CPE and that such configuration needs to be performed prior to establishing NSP connectivity. This may not necessarily be the case; a hierarchy of configuration mechanisms may be more appropriate to address all deployment scenarios. The first step in the service hierarchy could be performed using DHCP (IETF RFC 2131, Dynamic host configuration protocol, March 1997) and this could be performed once NSP layer 3 connectivity has been achieved. This was discussed and it was agreed to use DHCP as the primary method of performing layer 3 auto-configuring of CPE. It was also agreed to examine the existing work on L3 auto- configuration to determine a minimum set of parameters to be configured. The DSL Forum may consider defining simple vendor extensions to permit additional configuration and management resources to be located in the network. For example, the local management station and SNMPv1 community string would be configured into CPE using DHCP to provide access to more comprehensive configuration and management services for high-end CPE and carrier managed services. It was agreed to incorporate the following text into the architecture baseline document: “DSL CPE deployment is expected to play into a wide variety of service deployments ranging from retail purchase/unmanaged service to NSP fulfillment/fully managed offerings. Therefore, a configuration hierarchy at the service level is required. “Once initial network layer connectivity between the subscriber and the NSP is established, the CPE will use DHCP messaging to obtain the base set of layer 3 configuration parameters. In addition, the CPE can determine from the offered set of configuration parameters significant further details of the service offering supported by the NSP. “This separation of base function from more complex service configuration and management permits the auto-configuration architecture to play into a wide range of service scenarios.” DSLForum00-315 (B. Trumbo, P. Silverman, 3Com) presents proposed Rules of Engagement for the auto-configuration work. In discussion, it was agreed to assume the following: • DSL PHY layer initialization is provided; NAP configuration of DSLAM. • ATM layer is up – based on WT-48 specification. PVC are covered, maybe not SVCs. It was also agreed to: • Preserve natural management boundaries • Maintain provisioning model independence • Maintain application service independence – services like voice may configure/management • Maintain regulatory neutrality – consider all markets It was also agreed to adopt the following work items, as recommended by this contribution: • Continue to advance WT-048 through letter ballot to TR status. • Develop a WT on the “simple” environments. This should describe a best practice for the use of PPP over various encapsulations.

• Develop a WT to discuss service configuration issues for other environments. This should parallel WT-053, Protocols at the U Interface. • Develop a short WT that provides an architectural overview of auto-configuration. This small document should be created with the utmost dispatch. DSLForum00-311 (G. Agmon, J. Fainguelernt, ADC Telecommunications) seeks a solution supporting fully automated auto-configuration (that is, all relevant layers), as well as addressing enhanced services and service models. It is necessary to enable the end user to access any NSP/ISP and enable any additional configuration for future services; an in-band and out-of-band mechanism is needed. The ability to configure CPE beyond its very basic configuration (i.e., streaming video) is needed; this would open the door to greater flexibility. ILMI/DHCP/IPCP are limited in that they are closed systems (cannot add new parameters). DSLForum00-311 proposes the use of two approaches (semiautomatic and dynamic): use the WT- 48 approach for auto-configuration of basic service, and SNMP/AAL5 for L2&L3 enhanced services. CPE Auto-Configuration WG agreed to the following: • Layers 2 and 2.5 should be based on WT-048 ILMI • Layer 3 can be configured via in-band as well as out-of-band channels • In-band: DHCP, IPCP • Out-of-band by a flexible protocol, enabling the configuration of parameters currently not supported by the protocols above (e.g., SNMP/AAL5/{0:16} • Support dynamic configuration DSLForum00-312 (R. Turner, 2Wire) discusses issues and requirements to be explored in higher- level CPE automatic provisioning, i.e., layer-3 and higher. These discussed issues and requirements are in addition to what is specified by the current scope of WT-048. In discussion, it was agreed that all services (data, voice, etc.) should be handled. The general concepts in this contribution were accepted. DSLForum00-304, The Auto-configuration architecture (D. Allan, Nortel; P. Silverman, 3Com; P. Nelson, Alcatel; B. Stark, Bell South; D. Thorne, BT; J. Nevius, Copper Mountain Networks; B. Way, EarthLink; G. Karmous-Edwards, ECI Telecom; B. Perry, Efficient Networks; M. Listopad, Ericsson Ahead Communications; S. Rahmanian, Fujitsu Network Communications; C. Hansen, Intel; H. Mildonian, Lucent; D. Grossman, Motorola; G. Bathrick, Nokia; C. Mele, Paradyne; D. Phillips, Redback; J. Anders, Siemens; D. Ward, Sphere Communications; D. Hochberg; Telrad Networks; K. Johnson, Winfire), highlights the real and pragmatic requirements that were not fully addressed by the architecture proposed in DSLForum00-237, OpenDSL: DSL CPE Automatic Configuration (P. Gili, Cisco), presented at the August – September Dublin meeting. DSLForum00-306 (P. Nelson, Alcatel; D. Allan, Nortel) is a proposed baseline text for the auto- configuration architecture; it has been augmented from DSLForum00-0304. It was proposed that the sections 1-6 of DSLForum00-306 become baseline text for the architecture part of the DSL Auto-Configuration working text. The general concepts presented were accepted. It was also agreed to move work toward the working text efforts. A question was raised about DSLForum00-237, OpenDSL: DSL CPE Automatic Configuration (P. Gili, Cisco), which had been presented at the August – September Dublin meeting (see CSR Vol. 11.9 for details). The Chair reported that, following discussion with the authors, this contribution would not be presented again. The authors, who were present at this interim meeting and available to answer any specific questions, felt that another presentation was unnecessary at this meeting.

Summary of the Heathrow Interim Meeting, November 2, 2000 The framework contributions and presentations revealed divergent views on the problem space and requirements. CPE Auto-Configuration WG spent much of the meeting solidifying the service scenarios and requirements for the auto-configuration effort. At the end of the meeting, the following requirements were agreed: • Minimize customer interaction and truck rolls • Arbitrary NAP/multiple NSP/customer relationships • NAP/NSP/CPN management must be independent • Multiple services • Must support more than ATM over DMT (Discrete Multi-tone Carrier) ADSL • Should work in existing networks, regulatory environments • Support non-disruptive incremental service provisioning • Allow incremental deployment/upgrade of auto-configuration framework • Must support multiple transparent NSP configuration channels • Security: risk assessment and implications • Steal from other access technologies where appropriate, use existing standards • Initial deployment as well as refresh and reconfiguration of services • Connection vs. service, and use of WT-048 • Doesn’t preclude bulk provisioning This work is a refinement of that accomplished in McLean. It provides a common vocabulary and filter against which to evaluate specific technical solutions to the challenges of CPE auto- configuration. In a follow-on working meeting, further work was done to capture the detailed meaning of these items; the results of that work will be published to the mailing list after a final review. CPE Auto-Configuration WG identified the following service scenarios (ranked in importance) that need to be addressed by the CPE auto-configuration framework: 1. Single service from a single NSP; primary focus on Internet access including IP address, DNS server using CPE obtained independent of the NSP 2. Sequential access to single service type from multiple NSPs 3a. Configuring ATM layer for multiple ATM endpoints on the premises, at least one of which does not terminate in the xTU-R 3b. Simultaneous access to multiple types of services from a single NSPs 3c. Simultaneous access to different types of services from multiple NSPs 4. Simultaneous access to single type of service from multiple NSPs One other scenario was identified as needing further definition: Single ATM over the U interface but multiple CPN PHY interfaces (e.g., IAD) CPE Auto-Configuration WG agreed that while the auto-configuration framework should extend to all the scenarios, they will focus on creating a solution for customer deployment of DSL-based Internet access as quickly as possible.

Report of This Meeting DSLForum00-399 (P. Nelson, Alcatel, Editor Auto-configuration Architecture) outlines broad principles and guidelines designed to help in the creation of a baseline working text for auto-

16 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW configuration architecture, based on the agreements made at the November 2000 interim meeting in Heathrow, England. DSLForum00-406 (D. Allan, Nortel; P. Silverman, 3Com; S. Claes, Alcatel; B. Stark, Bell South; J. Nevius, Copper Mountain Networks; S. Rahmanian, Fujitsu Network Communications; H. Mildonian, Lucent; G. Bathrick, Nokia; C. Mele, Paradyne; D. Ward, Sphere Communications; M. Borden, TollBridge Technologies; J. M. Slaby, Virtual Access; J. Ronk, Westell) self-evaluates DHCP against the fourteen requirements and priorities determined at the November Heathrow interim meeting. It extracts material from DSLForum00-306, DSLForum00-309, DSLForum00- 326 (below), and other sources to outline how DHCP meets or exceeds the requirements determined at Heathrow. DSLForum00-423 (J. Fainguelernt, ADC) describes the deployment scenarios previously discussed in the DSL Forum, associating them with the service scenarios defined at the November interim meeting.

DSLForum00-427 (P. Gili, Cisco; G. Agmon, ADC; C. Hansen, Intel) proposes a framework describing CPE auto-configuration, to be incorporated into the framework architecture baseline text. DSLForum00-431 (G. Karmous-Edwards, ECI) proposes a baseline text for a definitions working text for the CPE Auto-Configuration WG and possibly for the entire DSL Forum. CPE Auto-Configuration WG made a number of minor edits to WT-048, CPE Auto-configuration straw ballot. They are waiting for approval of the ATM Forum specification (meeting January 22 - 26, 2001). It was agreed to release WT-048 in a second straw ballot for resolution at the February 2001 meeting in Cambridge, England, with a letter ballot expected for the Vancouver meeting in March. A TR could be approved at the March Vancouver meeting. Straw ballot votes to Approve WT-048 v.3, without comments, were received from: NightFire Software, EarthLink, WorldCom, Deutsche Telekom, Siemens, BT, GlobeSpan, Westell, 2Wire, Broadband Gateways, Alcatel, Copper Mountain, and ECI Telecom. The following straw ballot votes to Approve WT-048 v.3, with comments, were received: • DSLForum00-405 - 3Com • DSLForum00-416 - Ericsson • DSLForum00-355 - ADC • DSLForum00-388 - Fujitsu • DSLForum00-417 - BellSouth • DSLForum00-363 - Motorola • DSLForum00-352 - Cisco • DSLForum00-374 - Nortel

The plan for the Auto-configuration framework is as follows: • Agree on the comparison structure by early January 2001 • Contributions against comparison structure submitted by January 17 • Conference call January 19 • Meeting in Cambridge, February 7-9 • Meeting in Vancouver, BC in March Testing & Interoperability Working Group F. Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) is the T&I WG Chair. The T&I WG presentation to the closing plenary is contained in DSLForum00-452, and in DSLForum00-450. DSLForum2001-002 contains the draft minutes of this meeting. DSLForum00-351 contains the draft meeting minutes

January 19, 2001 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 17 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW from the T&I WG October 25 interim teleconference meeting. DSLForum00-301 contains the minutes of the August -September meeting in Dublin Ireland. DSLForum00-293 is the closing plenary presentation of that meeting. The T&I WG addresses cross-vendor interoperability, ADSL implementation conformance statements (ICS), test procedures, and configurations. The Interoperability Sub-Working Group of the T&I WG addresses interoperability test plans and testing events. All of the T&I WG sessions during this meeting were held jointly with the ISWG. For details of DSL Forum Interoperability events, see the report of the Marketing session, below.

Liaisons The following liaisons from the Dublin meeting were reviewed: • DSLForum00-295 is a liaison to the TIA TR-30.3 Chair concerning the recent TIA TR-30.3 input liaisons DSLforum00-287 (Regarding Liaison Report on TR-30.3 Meetings - August, 2000: Simulator Diagram), DSLforum00-280 (Regarding liaison report on TR-30.3 meetings - August 2000) and DSLforum00-206 (Regarding Liaison Report on Joint TR-30.3 and T1E1.4 Meetings -- May 9-10, 2000). This is the completed DSL Forum output liaison to TIA TR- 30.3 (copying T1E1.4) from the August 30 – September 1, 2000 Testing & Interoperability Working Group meeting in Dublin. It was noted that a partial response was received in the updated drafts. • DSLForum00-296, Liaison to ITU-T Q4/15 Chair regarding DSL Forum T&I WG activities: it was noted that the answer to the operation question on G.hs (see CSR Vol. 11 #9) is specified in the draft Recommendations. DSLForum00-087.2 (R. Brown, AG Communications Systems/Lucent) is a contribution from TR- 30.3; it is a modified version of TR-30.3/99-04-620, Non-continuous events in the telephone outside plant. Some recent submissions to T1E1.4 have suggested that non-continuous events, such as power variances, can be detrimental to services shared within the binder. This contribution characterizes three ubiquitous, non-continuous POTS events: ringing, supervision, and dial pulse, to illustrate that intra-binder interference in DSL frequency bands has been present for decades in the PSTN. These normal events represent cross talk impairments of changing magnitude, which are more severe than the classes currently under consideration for the spectral management standard. This was discussed; it was agreed that with some corrections this contribution can be used to enhance DSL Forum working texts. DSLForum00-432 is a liaison report from TR-30.3 on their September ad hoc meeting in Morristown, NJ, and their October meeting in Columbia, MD. Both meetings were held to discuss PN-4254, Telephone network transmission model for evaluation of xDSL systems and PN-4255, Test procedures for evaluating xDSL system performance. It was agreed to ask to receive the TR- 30.3 letter ballot, and to reiterate the unanswered questions from DSLForum00-295. DSLForum00-433, xDSL Loops and scores for network access transmission model (R. Perez, Telcordia), is a contribution resulting from TR-30.3 discussion of TR-30.3/00-10-868 at their October meeting. It was suggested that the test loops be redistributed, i.e., remove loops 1 and 6 and add loops with lengths of 12, 15, and 18 kft to the distribution. The loop count from test loops 1 and 6 were placed into a new bin ranging from 0 to 4500 ft, and three additional bins were added to make up the 13-bin distribution. A histogram in the document shows the distribution of 1310 loops; this is an increase of 23 loops because the final bin goes out to 18,500 ft. Tables show the 13 test loops with scores that reflect the 1997 loop survey data and the redistributed scores for the year 2002, and a figure illustrates the test loops for evaluating xDSL modems.

DSLForum00-451 is a liaison from the ETSI TM6 Monterey meeting regarding the interoperability work done at TM6. TM6 has introduced an action item for SHDSL/SDSL interoperability under its pending SHDSL/SDSL project; they have agreed to undertake work to develop interoperability test requirements in line with the DSL Forum process applicable to this project. ETSI TM6 requests clarification as to whether the scope of the DSL Forum’s work includes European SHDSL/SDSL interoperability requirements based on the TM6 SHDSL/SDSL interoperability work. ETSI TM6 wishes to cooperate with the DSL Forum to ensure that European-specific requirements are covered by the work of the DSL Forum, and in the implementation of interoperability test events.

Updated ITU-T Draft Recommendations Review DSLForum00-364 (M. Tzannes, Aware, Editor) contains the G.test.bis (G.996.1 Second Edition), Test procedures for digital subscriber line (DSL) transceivers, white contribution, as submitted to the ITU TSB. It was reported that this Recommendation has been Determined, and Approval is expected in February 2001. This version has new RFI test procedures; the previous version had none. This Recommendation is being heavily debated in the ITU, and may not be Approved, even though it has been Determined. DSLForum00-365 (S. Abbas, Centillium, Editor) is the revised Recommendation G.995 (G.ref.bis), updated for G.shdsl, white contribution. DSLForum00-366 (S. Blackwell, Centillium, Editor) provides the most recent version of draft Recommendation G.991.2 (ex G.shdsl). This Recommendation has been Determined; its intended Approval in February is very likely. Its alignment with ETSI SDSL is currently being worked via liaisons with TM6. DSLForum00-379 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) is a copy of the draft updated G.994.1 Recommendation, Handshake procedures for DSL transceivers, as requested in the DSL Forum liaison sent from the Dublin meeting. This draft document was provided for information, and is not the ITU-T final published document. It was reported that this draft has been updated for SHDSL and for Annex H (Japanese TCM ISDN) of G.992.1. It includes support for multi-pair operation and provisions for DSL equipment at the remote end of the loop (xTU-R) to propose a common mode of operation (new to this revision of the Recommendation through the use of new message type MP and its associated transactions). T&I WG agreed that they should consider this draft Recommendation in their work on the G.shdsl test plan, and to consider future updates to the Recommendation to ensure compliance in the test plans and working texts.

Test Plans DSLForum00-382 (A. Pickering, BT) details a test method for measuring the transmitted line signal of an ADSL system. The technique allows for measurement of the transmitted signal while the system is still in service and fully-operational; it therefor eliminates the need for a specific test mode. This measurement technique is proposed for inclusion in WT-051, ADSL Dynamic interoperability testing. It was agreed to put placeholders in WT-051 for in-service PSD (Power Spectral Density) measurement. DSLForum00-382 has issues for in-service PSD measurement, e.g., echo cancellation; contributions on in-service PSD measurement were requested for the next meeting. DSLForum00-347 (F. Van der Putten, Alcatel) provides a revision marked update to DSLForum00-082, the G.992.1 Physical layer interoperability test plan, to extend its scope to Annex B (ADSL over ISDN). It was accepted. The comments within the text will be reviewed again after editing.

DSLForum00-385.5 (NEC, Sumitomo Electric, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Mitsubishi Electric, Oki Electric, Toshiba, NTT) proposes clauses related to G.992.1 Annexes C (ADSL over POTS in binder with TCM-ISDN) and H (TCM ISDN), and G.992.2 Annex C, for WT-051 v.2. Jitter and wander requirements are not currently addressed in draft Annexes C and H; the clock signal for the figure in Section D.2 needs to be defined. DSLForum00-383 (A. Pickering, BT) details BT’s specific physical layer performance requirements for ADSL systems. The requirements shown in this contribution are in addition to the standard requirements detailed in G.992.1. This contribution was presented for information. DSLForum00-384 (A. Pickering, BT) is an HTML version of BT’s ADSL test plan and methodology, which was presented in Dublin (DSLForum00-253); it was presented at this meeting for information. DSLForum00-394 (ed. S. Aspell, R. Brost, SBC TRI; J. Viator, BellSouth) presents a test plan for evaluation of ADSL interoperability. The tests and requirements demonstrate interoperability of ADSL modems with various DSLAMs included in the reference model. The key items of loop reach and data handling performance are tested to demonstrate compliance with deployment based requirements. S. Valcourt (University of New Hampshire, ISWG Vice-Chair) gave a presentation on the DSL Forum Plugfest program. He noted some of the complaints that have been raised about the existing plugfests: They are unorganized, and too crowded to accomplish anything significant. Not enough of the attendees are companies which people want to test against, too many of the attendees don’t follow the test plans, and the test plans are incomplete. He explained that the plugfest model embraces new/emerging technology areas only. A process for test plan development is in place, and mechanism for feedback into test plans exists, as well as a method for moving from plugfest model into RSL (Reference System Lab) mode. He also reported that new areas for plugfests include G.shdsl, Auto-configuration/auto-provisioning, Upper layer testing (PPP, L2TP, etc.), VoDSL/CVoDSL, HDSL4, and Annex B, C, H, etc. In discussion, it was noted that plugfests help fill the void until reference system processes can be refined. A suggestion was made to limit the number of plugfests to avoid diluting participation.

Joint Session with G8 IG New proposed draft test plans were discussed jointly with G8 IG: PD-2 (G.dmt), PD-3 (G.lite), PD-4 (HDSL2), PD-5 (G.shdsl), PD-6 (PPP) The following WTs were discussed, and new versions generated: • WT-051, ADSL Dynamic interoperability testing (v.3) • WT-052, PPP static interoperability testing (v.4) • WT-030, ADSL T1.413-1998 Static interoperability testing (v.10); a request was made for additional editing assistance Further joint G8 IG/T&I WG sessions addressed reference systems, criteria, and labs (see below).

Joint Session with Architecture & Transport In a joint session, T&I WG /ISWG/A&T WG agreed on a new test plan for PPP-based solutions interoperability (PD-6), reviewed the scope of extra test cases, and discussed the alignment and update of WT-053. DSLForum00-357 contains the minutes of the joint T&I WG/A&T WG August - September meeting held in Dublin, Ireland. It was noted that some joint issues for WT-052, PPP static interoperability testing, are yet to be addressed. Joint discussion of the (set of) higher layer protocol(s) for testing and potential interoperability issues in end-to-end testing will be ongoing. DSLForum00-376 (A. Bichon, Network Equipment Technologies) is the draft test plan for performing PPP-based protocol stack interoperability testing at the U-interface. The following tables show what has been done so far and what is left to do. Encapsulations Area Standards Covered by (Testcases) Multiprotocol encapsulation over ATM RFC 2684 WT-052 Annex A (5)

PPPoX Area Standards Covered by (Testcases) PPP Over AAL5 RFC 2364 WT-052 Annex C (4) PPP Over Ethernet RFC 2516 Not covered

PPP Area Standards Covered by (Test cases) PPP LCP RFC 1661 (PPP) WT-052 Annex D (21) PPP Authentication RFC 1334 (PAP) WT-052 Annex E (5) RFC 1994 (CHAP) WT-052 Annex E (5) RFC 2484 (NAI) Not covered PPP NCP RFC 1332 (IPCP) WT-052 Annex F (6) RFC 2472 (IPCP IPv6) Not covered RFC 1877 (Ext NS) Not covered

PPP Extensions and other features Area Standards Covered by (Test cases) PPP Extensions RFC 1570, 2153 Referenced in WT-052 Annex G (6 extensions) PPP Link Quality Monitoring RFC 1989 Not covered DHCP Functionality RFC 2131 WT-052 Annex B (1) DSLForum00-290 (B. Trumbo, 3Com) is a slide presentation on multiple PPP sessions over a PVC (Permanent Virtual Circuit) using L2TP/AAL5. It proposes that L2TP/AAL5 be added to WT-053 as a protocol stack option at the U interface. Key features are: • Multiple PPP sessions per PVC • PPP sessions identified with “users” - generally, one session per PC • Tunneling is involuntary at U interface • L2TP from ATU-R to L2TP aggregator - L2TP/AAL5: access network is pure ATM • Independent of customer premise network

Next Steps Two teleconferences are scheduled: • January 23, 2001, 11:00 am EST (1.5 hrs): T&I WG/ISWG: review/update all items (action/living list/working texts/test plans – PDs) • February 12, 11:00 am EST (.75 hr): T&I WG/ISWG: documents/contributions G8 Interoperability Group M. Peden (NorthPoint Communications), the G8 IG Chair, presented an update on the G8 IG. Since the August – September Dublin meeting, G8 IG has selected the equipment vendors via lottery, and set up the equipment at the University of New Hampshire for the Reference System Lab. G8 IG has also defined the pass/fail criteria for the test criteria. The NDA for reference systems vendors, as well as for general testing, have been created, as has the roadmap for the transition to the qualification program. The following table shows the G8 IG roadmap toward Plug-n-Play:

Reference System Lab Done Today Qualification Lab Phase 1 Service Providers Mid 2001 Qualification Lab Phase 2 CPE Auto-configuration, Service Providers Early 2002 Retail ADSL P-n-P All equipment vendors, CPE Auto-config Late 2002 framework service providers Retail xDSL P-n-P Interoperable silicon, All equipment Early 2003 vendors, CPE Auto-config framework service providers

The status of the Reference Systems Lab is as follows: • Testing of G.dmt and G.lite 3x3 equipment matrices underway • Some bugs identified and vendor notification underway • Lab open for general testing or new reference system equipment in January/February 2001 Phase 1 of the Qualification Lab will focus on physical layer tests created by the DSL Forum service providers. Phase 2 will add CPE Auto-configuration test plans created by the DSL Forum (based on deployment models/scenarios). In both phases, the Qualification Lab will provide objective results to service providers, as well as “localized” testing for customer base (ex. DSLAMs used in a particular area). This activity will accelerate market deployment. The Retail ADSL Plug-n-Play program will certify/qualify CPEs against most/all DSLAMs. The Retail xDSL Plug-n-Play program will extend model/experiences gained with ADSL with upcoming technologies, e.g., G.SHDSL, ADSL Annex B, ADSL Annex C, VDSL, etc. With help from SPs, G8 IG will create high level test plans that cover requirements/criteria and release the “package” to everyone interested. Test houses will self-nominate; they will agree to support the requirements/criteria of the DSL Forum. Test houses who agree will be “recognized” by the DSL Forum and will be listed as such on the DSL Forum web page. Based on feedback from SPs, the list will be revised to keep test houses from deviating from the minimum requirements. Non-compliant test houses will have the opportunity to return to/establish compliance before being removed from the list. Test houses will work with the DSL Forum to enhance and improve future test plans/requirements.

G8 IG emphasizes that they are not mandating test plans, but rather the minimum data and format of test results. Test house can run their own internal proprietary/unique test plan as long as the minimum data required is collected and analyzed according to DSL Forum guidelines. Test houses can run additional tests or tailor their work to meet the needs of local customers, as long as these tests include DSL Forum minimum requirements. All data collected and the format of the official report must comply with DSL Forum guidelines even if test houses run additional tests or provide other value-added services. Test houses will cooperate with the DSL Forum to ensure compliance with DSL Forum guidelines. Test house proprietary information will not be shared with others. G8 IG is still investigating certain issues. It has been suggested that the DSL Forum could list the “Pass” results on a master list. SPs would then work with individual equipment makers for detailed (and confidential) test reports. The questions have been asked: • What data can/should be listed and/or collected by the DSL Forum to share with the DSL community and SPs? • Assuming data is collected, should that data be tied to the requirements used as they evolve/improve? To maintain high quality for recognized test houses, feedback from SPs could be used to create a “warning” letter to be sent to a non-conforming test house. In the case of the potential removal of a non-compliant test house from the official list and website, • What is a reasonable time? • What about older/prior results already posted? • What can be done to move faster? • What can be done to move in parallel with non-ADSL products?

Joint G8 Session with the Testing & Interoperability Working Group A joint G8 IG/T&I WG meeting discussed the Reference Systems Lab and Qualification Project. DSLForum00-425 (B. Wiseman, TI; M. Peden, Simpler Networks; A. Kim, 3COM; J. Fausch, Alcatel; W. Quiles, Cisco; F. Kaudel, Fluke; G. Gough, SBC; S. Harris, ECI Telecom; N. Billington, BT) summarizes the work performed by the G8 organizing committee to establish and administer an Interoperability Testing Program for DSL solutions. It is the goal of this project to establish and maintain universal interoperability of modems in support of mass market deployments for DSL. The immediate focus of G8 rests on the definition of a process to achieve interoperability at layers 1 and 2 of the OSI Reference Model and foster product and service interoperability which is the necessary key element for attaining mass market DSL success. Subsequent work will address interoperability at higher layers, interoperability of other standards-based DSLs, and address the need for a qualification or certification model. Since its inception, the G8 IG has coordinated the selection of an interoperability testing house (currently the University of New Hampshire ADSL Interoperability Laboratory) for the DSL Forum, and conducted a survey of the membership on certification. In addition, G8 IG has been actively setting up a new process that moves beyond massive testing events (i.e., plugfests) for the verification of interoperability into a more laboratory-based testing program. This testing program has become known as the “Reference Systems Laboratory” because of the pool of reference systems that are available for testing purposes. In addition, G8 IG is actively involved in initiating the process for selection of a test house (or houses) to engage following the expiration of their agreement with UNH in February 2001.

The goal of the Reference Systems Laboratory is to provide a representative sample of equipment in the field to ensure that test results will provide a high level of confidence and correlation with real world deployments. It is the goal that successful testing at the RSL will guarantee that equipment will operate successfully when deployed in the field. Such interoperability success is required to facilitate a retail distribution model for DSL CPE, thereby hastening the arrival of a mass market. The RSL was established with a minimum set of equipment. It was determined that the initial equipment pool should represent three different physical layer solutions for each protocol and product type. Thus, the initial equipment pool consists of three G.dmt DSLAMs, three G.dmt CPEs, three G.lite DSLAMs, and three G.lite CPEs. Within each category, three different physical layer solutions are provided. As additional equipment is added to the RSL over time, multiple implementations of a single physical layer solution may be available. However, testing should always include the broadest coverage to ensure maximum interoperability of products in the industry. Admission to the RSL pool of equipment involves both technical and logistic support requirements. These requirements have been established to support the on-going success of the project; they represent a significant commitment by the vendor submitting the equipment. It is therefore anticipated that some vendors will choose to not become part of the RSL equipment pool but will rather use the laboratory for independent product testing. To be a reference system, a vendor has to meet certain criteria: • Principal member of the DSL Forum • Product must be in service • Must support G.dmt (Annex A) and/or G.lite • Commitment to support agreed upon process • Commitment to leave product in the lab for at least one year • One reference system in one lab, with manuals, etc. • Identification of known items not in full compliance • Bug list is open to the members of the group • Maintain a version control (HW/SW) • Support resources identified with contact information • Commitment to the rules of non-disclosure • Must provide all field deployed code available in the lab In a further refinement of these criteria, additional testing pass/fail criteria were imposed on the initial candidates. G8 IG intends to establish multiple testing sites around the world which will use DSL Forum approved processes and testing criteria. Since many test labs consider test cases to be proprietary and confidential intellectual property, it is important to have a generic test plan which the DSL Forum approves and which is used exactly as defined by the DSL Forum. If test houses wish to provide additional testing above and beyond the reference system/certification testing, they may do so; this supports test houses providing beneficial services to the industry while maintaining consistency within the program as a whole. Such testing, unless incorporated into the DSL Forum’s formal test plans developed by the T&I WG, cannot be used for DSL Forum reference system qualification or certification. Because industry requirements are rapidly changing as the DSL market develops, the criteria and test plan for the RSL will need to be modified over time. A process for modification of the test plan matrix including pass/fail criteria has been defined for the RSL operations. Normal operation of the RSL is expected to include daily testing of equipment against the RSL equipment pool. The DSL Forum will endorse a certification lab and process, but will not put itself

24 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW in the position of choosing who is certified or not; the independent DSL Forum-approved test lab will “certify” compliant gear. DSL Forum will provide test plans and processes to guide the testing labs in the qualification program. General testing using the RSL will result in a test report. A successful system must test completely against all reference systems in its category to be considered completely interoperable. Failures as well as bugs shall be considered confidential information and may not be used for competitive marketing purposes. The selection lottery was held on September 15 2000; the candidates selected were: • G.lite CPE: Conexant, Intel, Alcatel (AME) • G.lite DSLAM: Orckit, Alcatel, Siemens • G.dmt CPE: Conexant, Ericsson (TI), 3Com (AME) • G.dmt DSLAM: Alcatel, Siemens (TI), Cisco Twenty two working days (one month) were reserved for testing the initial Reference Systems matrix before declaring the RSL open for general testing or additional Reference Systems. Due to preparations required at UNH to establish a new test platform, testing was delayed until mid- October and continued through the month of November. Emerging DSLs Study Group D. Greggains (Gorham & Partners) is the Emerging DSL Study Group Chair. The EDSLSG presentation to the closing plenary is in DSLForum00-452. DSLForum00-291 contains the minutes of the EDSLSG August – September meeting held in Dublin, Ireland. The EDSLSG is a study group comprised of both marketing and technical members. It covers all standards-based or standards-compliant DSL technologies and related system architectures that extend the xDSL domain beyond ADSL and other existing systems. It also covers those DSLs for which standards are currently under development.

WT-047, Aspects of VDSL Evolution Editing and review of WT-047, Aspects of VDSL evolution, was completed (now version 7). The straw ballot will begin in January 2001. DSLForum00-245v2 (C. Van Dusen, VideoTele.com) is WT-047 Appendix A-1. This informative annex provides a generic description of video services for delivery in VDSL environments. DSLForum00-344 (P. Khuu, Marconi Communications; M. Stanton, Unisys MS 4873) describes generic VOD (Video on Demand) architecture over DSL with a focus on the signaling and control aspect. It discusses various categories of signaling and control needed to provide the service. It is intended to be an informative addition to the body of WT-047, and potentially to other working texts as well. DSLForum00-344 describes the VOD network as a two-level model. Level 1 provides the basic transmission facility management, Level 1 Gateway (e.g., service provider announcement, identification, selection, etc.), provisioning services, and a number of enhanced network level functions. Level 2 provides the basic programming, Level 2 Gateway (e.g., advanced program navigation, video server control, etc.), and a number of enhanced programming or content bearing services. DSLForum00-387 (P. Korolkiewicz, Ericsson) is the second proposal considering how to update the VDSL Compendium ( a tutorial view of VDSL similar to WT-047), which was launched on the

DSL Forum web site in August 1998. This contribution consists of the Contents list of the Compendium with proposed changes to the contents and associated comments for the editor. DSLForum00-403 (R. Daley, Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe) discusses the migration of services from ADSL to VDSL based Services. It proposes additional text for Section 6 of WT- 047. It describes a two-staged evolution from ADSL to VDSL based broadband services on Green Field (first time customers) and Brown Field (customers with other broadband service, e.g., cable) deployments. It identifies barriers and enablers to service evolution in each case. It also identifies and tabulates a number of VDSL enabled services for residential and SME customers.

Joint Meeting with FS-VDSL Committee EDSLSG, in a joint meeting with the FSAN FS (Full Service) VDSL committee, developed recommendations for supporting FS-VDSL. The FS VDSL committee is a sub-committee of FSAN focusing on the FSAN band plan 998. FSAN FS-VDSL would like the DSL Forum to address full service issues, and provide inputs to them on the following: • Develop existing work on Auto-configuration • Develop existing work on derived voice • Expand scope of interoperability work • Assist in the development of OAM&P specs

Work Extension for DSLF The FS VDSL committee recommends that the DSL Forum Board of Directors consider a new flagship activity, to possibly be called “Full Service DSL.” This activity would expand the scope of existing DSL Forum Recommendations to include full service aspects of existing work including VOD. They emphasize that the name used for this activity will be an important issue requiring careful thought. Recommendations for new documents include: • Aspects of full service DSL evolution (EDSLSG) • To add significant detail and content to WT-047 • FS DSL Auto-configuration (Architecture) • FS DSL Architecture and control protocols (Architecture) • FS DSL Management (OAM) • FS DSL Operations (OAM) • VDSL Multi-part interop requirements (SIG + Testing & Interoperability) • Video over DSL - end-to-end aspects (Group TBD) One issue is whether to consolidate VOD with multi-service architecture work. The joint EDSLSG/FS VDSL meeting agreed to the following recommendations/actions: • DSL Forum will set up a joint meeting exploder • FS VDSL attendees should copy all work to the joint FS VDSL/EDSLSG exploder • FS VDSL Forum Members should copy their material to the DSL Forum to assist Forum activities

VDSL Work Plan Proposals It was proposed to start work on WT-047, Aspects of VDSL evolution, Issue 2, and incorporate the work for FS VDSL. Projected plans include finalization in one year. EDSLSG future work includes: • Reference model development • Service-set propositions • Kick-off interoperability work • Survey of solutions - DAVIC, DVB, etc. • Work planning with DSL Forum working groups - OAMP issues and MIB evolution - Auto-configuration - Server functionalities Performance Management Break-Out DSLForum00-463 contains the presentation on the Performance Management (PM) breakout session (K. Armington, Telcordia). The DSL PM goal is to monitor network health to proactively fix problems before they affect service (e.g., capacity utilization changes), and to ensure that network QoS and SLAs (service level agreements) are being met. TR-30 requires the following for ADSL EMS-NMS for performance management: • ADSL line operational data: the NMS shall be able to initiate a request to the ADSL EMS to obtain ADSL line operational data. A time stamp should also be provided, if it is available. • Retrieval of performance monitoring register data: the EMS shall allow the NMS to retrieve the content of any or all of the PM registers in a NE. This includes parameters related to ATM QoS. • Manipulation of PM thresholds/PM data: the EMS shall allow the NMS to set and modify the PM thresholds or collection of PM data on a per-termination-point basis in the NE. ADSL PM Parameters include: • Loss of frame seconds • Loss of signal events • Loss of link events • Loss of power events • Errored seconds • Severely errored seconds • Unavailable seconds • Initialization events • Fast retrain attempts • Failed fast retrain attempts • Code violations • Forward error corrections • Forward error correction seconds • Loss of signal seconds Service providers with PM and SLAs need to prove network reliability and ensure QoS to ISPs. Specifically, PM must enable the service provider to use data to trigger network upgrades and manage capacity, and feed fault management activities, which can include using trends to initiate

January 19, 2001 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 27 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW pro-active maintenance and supporting fault diagnostics. The basic QoS metrics are service fulfillment time, time to repair, and network latency. The use of SLA management for PM was discussed. It was noted that interest has been expressed in using SLA management to sell premium services that go beyond the current, basic Internet access “best effort” service. VoDSL needs to address this issue in terms of QoS, but the need/business driver for PM in residential Internet access is less clear. It was agreed that more data is needed on the use of SLAs as a business opportunity. The following questions/issues should be investigated: • What SLAs are cable modem providers offering, if any? • End-to-end SLA data is needed to make this possible, yet it will be difficult to collect data from multiple network providers. • Explore the concept of using CPE as a collection point for QoS data rather than multiple network collection points. • What work has already been done in the ATM Forum, the FR Forum, the IETF? Fault Management Breakout DSLForum00-463 (P. Adams, BT) contains the presentation on the Fault Management (FM) breakout session. Fault management is the reactive management of the network and service. In a world with multiple technologies and multiple providers, fault management hopes to achieve: • A seamless response to the customer • Fast demarcation, diagnosis, and dispatch to minimize down-time • Low cost of failure for all, through: - Right first time - Lowest possible manual exception handling - Automated flow-through • The ability to handle configuration errors introduced by network and OSS changes • Provider awareness of a fault • Provider cooperation for fault handling • Customer fault management capabilities • Inclusion of automated restoration • Prediction of faults from performance management • Recording fault history (technical and operational) to enable process, OSS, and equipment improvement The significant faults/problems to be addressed are equipment failures and CPE failures, but no individual items are particularly salient. For seamless fault management, fault isolation and correlation are required to handle common equipment failures. For demarcation, diagnosis, and dispatch, testing and access to network records (sharing?) is required. For low-cost fault management, automation of fault management for the most frequent faults, and a common vocabulary to ensure understanding between providers, is required. To move forward, clear models and language to define the problem must be created. Fault volumes must be understood. Methods for fault demarcation and diagnosis, e.g., testing, must be investigated and characterized.

28 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW Marketing N. Gebrael (Nortel) is the Marketing Chair, and J. Fausch (Alcatel) is the Vice Chair. The Marketing presentation for the opening plenary is in DSLForum00-453. The Marketing presentation for the closing plenary is in DSLForum00-456 (same as presentation in DSLForum00-452).

Trade Shows and Industry Events SUPERCOMM 2001 will be held in Atlanta, GA; information will be distributed to the membership in January 2001. A CeBIT show will be held in Hannover, Germany, March 22-28, 2001. An interoperability staging event will be held February 16-24, 2001. G.dmt Annex A (ADSL over POTS), G.dmt Annex B (ADSL over ISDN), and G.lite (ADSL over POTS) will be shown. It is too soon for the G.shdsl interop showcase; it was deferred to SUPERCOMM 2001. For CeBIT, the focus will be on G.shdsl PR and marketing. Showing applications will be organized in the same way as for CES 2001. CeBIT booth space can accommodate 10 to 15 DSLAMs and 20 CPEs. Participants indicate which technologies they want to show at registration time. Participants qualify in staging. CPE vendors can select which DSLAM(s) they want to connect to in the showcase. The intent is to guarantee a good share of the showcase to G.dmt Annex B. A maximum of 50% of the DSLAMs are reserved for G.dmt Annex B. If 50% is not filled, G.dmt Annex A and G.lite will be rolled over to fill. DSLAMs with multiple linecard types in one rack are preferred to save space. The participation fee for such DSLAMs remains an open issue. The CeBIT 2001 technical requirements (as defined by current test plans (PD-2 and PD-3), tests 1- 7 (PPP or bridged) (Optional: G.lite Fast Retrain) are as follows: • G.dmt Annex A and G.lite: same requirements as for CES 2001. • G.dmt Annex B: - Test 1 to 6 (PPP or bridged) as for G.dmt Annex A - Test 7 with 384 kbit/s down and 128 kbit/s up over 3 km 0.4 mm wire, no noise - No live ISDN for testing - Any-to-any interoperability - No requirements on the type of code used The projected number of participants for CeBIT 2001 is 10 – 15 DSLAM vendors and 20 CPE vendors, and for SUPERCOMM 2001, 20 DSLAM vendors and 30 – 36 CPE vendors. Applications accepted for both CeBIT and SUPERCOMM include VoDSL, Video Conferencing, Gnutella (the name for an open, decentralized, peer-to-peer search system that is mainly used to find files), Streaming Video, Online Gaming, and Enhanced Internet. The current interoperability requirements for CEBIT and SUPERCOMM are: • As defined by current test plans (DSLForum00-082 and DSLForum00-215, G.992.2 Interoperability test plan v.1.6), tests 1-6 (PPP or bridged), optional: fast retrain for G.lite • Add test 7: 15kft, 26AWG, clean loop, 384/128 kbit/s • Silicon from different sources - Demonstrating any-to-any connectivity using field release code as of December 13, 2000 - Each consumer available CPE capable of connecting to all DSLAMs - Minimum G.992.1 or G.992.2 to same (with G.hs [G.994.1])

The following Interoperability events were held or are planned: • September 18 - 22 – All-vendors interoperability event • December 13 - 20, 2000 – CES Staging, UNH • January 2 - 10, 2001 – CES, Las Vegas • Considering January 22 - 26, 2001 – Plugfest – SHDSL?, Annex B? • February 19 - 23, 2001 – CeBIT Staging, Europe • Considering February 26 - March 2, 2001 – Plugfest? • Considering March 5 - 9, 2001 – Plugfest? • March 12 - 16, 2001 – DSL Forum, Vancouver • March 18 - 28, 2001 – CeBIT, Hanover • Considering April 2 - 6, 2001 – Plugfest ? • May 2001 – SUPERCOMM Staging, TBD? • June 2001 – SUPERCOMM, Atlanta • June 18 - 22, 2001 – DSL Forum, Oslo • Considering July/August 2001 – Plugfest? • August 27 - 31, 2001 – DSL Forum, New Orleans • Considering September/October 2001 – Plugfest? • December 3 - 7, 2001 – DSL Forum, Munich • December 2001 – CES Staging, TBD? • January 2002 – CES, Las Vegas Informational/membership booths are planned for: • DSL World Forum, Chicago, IL, July 16-19, 2001 - 10x20 informational booth - Membership reception/sponsorship opportunity - Chair for Best Practices TecForum and Market Analyst Session • DSLcon Asia, Hong Kong, China, August 13-16, 2001 - Conference program/membership reception • ISPCON Fall 2001, Las Vegas, NV, October 9-11, 2001 - 20x30 booth with theater area - Conference program - Membership reception/sponsorship opportunity • DSLcon Europe 2001, Munich, Germany, September 17-20, 2001 - 10x20 informational booth - Conference program - Sponsorship opportunity

Deployment Council The Deployment Council Chair is P. Skeba (Intel). DSLForum00-443 contains the Deployment Council’s mission and statement of work. The Deployment Council was chartered at the DSL Forum Meeting in Orlando in May 2000. Its mission is to represent the voice of the market to the DSL Forum, and ensure that matters impacting both the end user and the service provider are properly identified, prioritized, and engaged for action within the DSL Forum. The Council will provide the DSL Forum Board of Directors with a dynamic list of emerging industry, market, and technology priorities to enable the DSL Forum committees and WGs to effectively focus, manage, and direct appropriate resources in a proactive fashion. The Council will assist the Forum’s Public Relations agencies, Ambassadors, and general membership in the development of industry statements which can be used to position DSL

30 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 January 19, 2001 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW technologies, address press text (both positive and negative) and end user questions generated by the service delivery process inherent with DSL technology. The Council has been developing a master Market Service Requirement (MSR) document, which is designed to capture input from the Service Provider Panel and ensure that priorities identified in Forum meetings with the service providers are assigned to WGs within the Forum. The MSR document defines an MSR service provider and end user needs matrix. The MSR was reviewed with Technical Committee leadership and selected WGs. Cross tab service provider input from the Dublin meeting was provided to the WGs. It is expected that the present draft MSR document will ultimately lead to a strategic Marketing Committee report. The Council assigned narrative and content development to its members for development after this meeting. Liaisons with WGs will help assess the status of work efforts in support of identified MSR service provider/end user needs. Industry message content will be created as key messages and “sound bytes” for use by the Forum with their customers, the press, analysts, ambassadors, and manufacturers. A new FAQ has been created for managing customer expectations. At this meeting, the Deployment Council sponsored a messaging workshop. Topics covered include: • Definition of audiences as end-user, media/analyst (financial, industry), service provider • Discussion of negative perceptions/messages • Positive message brainstorming • Message consolidation into seven • Assignment of draft responsibility DLSForum00-413, Deployment FAQs (H. Tomasson, Hekimian), answers questions an end-user might face when attempting to order and install DSL service for residential use. The target audience is the general public, as opposed to technologically advanced innovators or early adopters. The distribution medium for this document is the www.dsllife.com website, as an extension to existing FAQs.

Public Relations The objective of the public relations effort is to support delivery of the global mass market. The audiences include stakeholders/providers, and end users: B2B, and B2C. Public relations will be carried out using editorial media: news, features, commissioned articles, and case studies, aimed at trade markets (stakeholders), vertical markets (end users), and mass markets (end user and trade). Trade show support maximizes the impact of the editorial media. Summit support capitalizes on the events and adds value to the Marketing team work. Voce Public Relations is the company providing the PR for the- Americas; PIELLE Consulting provides the PR for Europe/Asia. These teams were presented in detail. Outcomes in 4Q00 include three news stories in CWI, and one in NetworkWorld. A feature was published in ETIB. Publication of stories is upcoming in Global Communications, ITQ, CTD, and Insight. Several articles will be written for ECTA Review, OSM, Communications in China, and Global Communications. A number of public relations quotes from the media were presented from Communications Week International, September to November 2000.

European Mindshare Campaign The European Mindshare Campaign was presented. Its focus is Western and Eastern Europe; its purpose is to develop awareness and understanding of DSL technology among end users of current applications and additional benefits to direct the mass market towards additional DSL implementation. Its initial primary emphasis is marketing, i.e., advertising. Five phases are to occur over a one year period: • Phase I: “Knowledge share” – a series of press and educational DSL conferences throughout Europe. Selected sites are: London, Paris, Brussels, Munich, Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Madrid, Hanover (CeBIT), and Milan (SMAU). • Phase II: Data Gathering – target end March 1, 2001 • Phase III: Sponsorship campaign – target end November 1, 2001 • Phase IV: Creative development • Phase V: Rollout 1Q02.

Ambassador Program The Ambassador Program was presented. Its objectives are to educate the market about DSL and the DSL Forum, and to contribute to conferences, industry events, tradeshows, and exhibitions with presentations of what DSL is and what the DSL Forum provides. F. Stamberger (Infineon Technologies) is the Ambassador Program committee chair. The focus of the Ambassador Program for 2001 is to: • Introduce the new Ambassador Program • Find and coordinate the speaking opportunities according to the DSL Forum’s focus in Europe, Asia, and Latin America • Presentation material on new areas Ambassador contracts were issued and will be sent to each Ambassador. The list was reduced to 19 active individuals, with a reserve pool of 13 others. The program was updated with travel rules and a reserve pool of Ambassadors and volunteers. This program will be featured in a prominent place on the DSL Forum’s new website. Ambassadors will provide support to the European Mindshare program, as well as to trade shows and industry events.

DSL Forum Websites http://www.DSLlife.com is a website sponsored by the DSL Forum. The purpose of this website is to facilitate the DSL mass market through web presence, and to leverage the Mindshare campaign(s). New content is added frequently. A technical writer was hired, and industry definitions were posed. Home Networking, VoDSL, and Security were added. Plans have been made for a Buyer’s Guide for products and services. The point and click map is frequently being updated, particularly with free listings/free leads, and international service providers. http://www.DSLForum.org website will have a new web design, with better navigation. It includes relevant information for DSL Forum members and their companies, with a company profile management system. The expected completion date is March 2001. DSLForum00-298 (D. Briere, TeleChoice) is the website feature enhancement plan. It is a brainstorming document from the Web Committee concerning future potential functionality to be added to the member sites (http://www.dslforum.org) as well as to the public sites

(http://www.dsllife.com). It is meant to be the basis for the three-year plan for website development. DSLForum00-448 is the website plan for DSLForum.org (entry page). eCommerce Committee The goal of the eCommerce Committee is to speed mass deployment of DSL by establishing and propagating unambiguous DSL marketing standards, such as terminology, classifications, APIs, etc. The Co-Chairs are K. Schneider (Telebyte) and D. Briere (TeleChoice). Key 2001 deliverables of the eCommerce Committee are to: • Establish/maintain a DSL Forum-sponsored DSL Industry classification system for marketing use • Establish/maintain a DSL Forum-sponsored DSL Industry product-level definitions schema for marketing use (in conjunction with technical WGs) • Maintain the DSL Forum-sponsored DSL Glossary • Help drive DSL Forum understanding of key industry e-commerce initiatives (UDDI, RosettaNet, etc.) in conjunction with technical WGs DSLForum00-465 (D. Briere, TeleChoice) is a proposed DSL Industry hierarchy/classification that the Forum would adopt as a recommended way to view the DSL Industry. It would have applications in use for e-commerce, analysis, and research in the DSL space.

Marketing Summit The Marketing Summit objectives are to: • Deliver quality presentations on key issues affecting the industry • Maintain high level of excellence – both speakers and presentations • Target audience remains DSL Forum marketing and technical constituency • Individually manage trade press, e.g., direct to DSL-friendly sessions • Maintain strong linkage to technical and marketing WG activities, e.g., Deployment Council, VoDSL, etc. Summit tactical actions include: • Make better use of IEC speaker and planning resources • Use IEC planning meetings to refine Summit topics and identify speakers • Use European-based resources to lead (with assistance from Summit team) and organize Oslo Summit speakers and topics

Visit the CSR Web Pages: http://www.csrstds.com The Web Pages include an on-line store (order subscriptions and reports), an updated Telecom Acronym Definitions list, updated meeting schedules, a list of web sites and ftp sites as listed in all issues of CSR journals, background material on telecom standards and CSR (the company), data sheets on both CSR technical journals, and more.

January 19, 2001 Vol. 12.02 Copyright © CSR 2001 33 COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW DSL Forum Meeting Roster, December 5 - 8, 2000, Portland, OR Gavin Young (AdEvia) Technical Committee Chair Frank Van der Putten (Alcatel) Technical Committee Vice Chair Martin Jackson (Virata) Architecture and Transport Chair Greg Wetzel (Covad Communications) VoDSL Chair Greg Bathrick ( Lucent Technologies) Operations & Network Management Co-Chair Peter Adams (BT) Operations & Network Management Co-Chair Fred Kaudel (Fluke Corporation) Testing & Interoperability Chair David Greggains (Gorham & Partners) Emerging DSLs Study Group Chair Host: Intel

2Wire Ted Fagenson [email protected] 2Wire Steve Strutner [email protected] 2Wire Randy Turner [email protected] 3Com Robert Bloom [email protected] 3Com Ilya Fuksman [email protected] 3Com Anne Kim [email protected] 3Com Tom Kinahan [email protected] 3Com Thomas Knight [email protected] 3Com Vidyaranya Manda [email protected] 3Com Steven Pizzi [email protected] 3Com Siva Prasad Raghava Reddy [email protected] 3Com Peter Silverman [email protected] 3Com Simer Singh [email protected] 3Com Ken Starkey [email protected] 3Com Bruce Trumbo [email protected] 3Com Lee Waxman [email protected] 3Com Scott Wheeler [email protected] Actiontec Electronics Jingwei Lin [email protected] Actiontec Electronics Victor Maravilias [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Gideon Agmon [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Nir Drori [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Jacob Fainguelernt [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Robert Kroninger [email protected] ADC Telecommunications Wyatt Meek [email protected] ADC Telecommunications M. Sayeed Rashid [email protected] AdEvia Limited James Southworth [email protected] AdEvia Limited Gavin Young [email protected] ADTRAN Keith Atwell [email protected] ADTRAN Everett Brooks [email protected] ADTRAN Kyle Farnsworth [email protected] ADTRAN David Melvin [email protected] ADTRAN Mary Russell [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Joseph (Pino) Golja [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Moshe Oron [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Jim Rogers [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Karl Schlenther [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Ancil Tucker [email protected] Advanced Fibre Communications Rolf Wendt [email protected] Agilent Technologies Richard Barrett [email protected] Agilent Technologies Rolf McClellan [email protected] Alcatel Brian Harvey [email protected]

Alcatel Scott Jones [email protected] Alcatel Chuck Storry [email protected] Alcatel Rajesh Abbi [email protected] Alcatel Patrick Bannon [email protected] Alcatel Michele Boulard [email protected] Alcatel Remi Bourlon [email protected] Alcatel Stan Claes [email protected] Alcatel Guus Claessen [email protected] Alcatel Sam D’Haeseleer [email protected] Alcatel Karin Degroote [email protected] Alcatel Philip Nelson [email protected] Alcatel Erik Person [email protected] Alcatel Frank Van der Putten [email protected] America Online Mark Pilipczuk debbiebiggs1@aol.com Analog Devices Dennis Chan [email protected] Analog Devices Massoud Hadjiahmad [email protected] Analog Devices Roy Harvey [email protected] Analog Devices Alice Valure [email protected] Applied Innovation Jack Ray [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Tony Digiulio [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Rick Lyons [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Raymond Momut [email protected] ARESCOM, INC. Jerry Venturas [email protected] AT&T Laboratories Scott Mollica [email protected] ATIS Ed Hall ATIS Susan Miller Avaya, Inc. Shel Conary [email protected] Aware David Benini [email protected] Aware Peter LeBlanc [email protected] Aware Marcos Tzannes [email protected] BABT Product Service Harmit Toor [email protected] Bel Fuse Joe Berry [email protected] Bel Fuse Craig Somach [email protected] Belenos Larry Coolbroth [email protected] Belenos Walter Mansell [email protected] Birch Telecom Jon Carr [email protected] Broadband Gateways Kevin Hager [email protected] Broadcom Yarran Lu [email protected] BroadJump Tom Chmielewski [email protected] BroadJump Jim Crow [email protected] BroadJump David Gardiner [email protected] Broadxent Sunny Chen [email protected] Broadxent Young Choi [email protected] BT Peter Adams [email protected] BT Nigel Billington [email protected] BT Ashley Pickering [email protected] Catena Networks Gary Bolton [email protected] Cayman Systems Ken Benveniste [email protected] Cayman Systems Marilyn Maguire [email protected] Cayman Systems George Mukai [email protected] Cayman Systems Bruce Reading [email protected] Cayman Systems John Stephens [email protected] Celsian Technologies Chy Chuawiwat [email protected]

Centillium Communications Syed Abbas [email protected] Centillium Communications Kimberly Funasaki [email protected] Centillium Communications Al Gharakhanian [email protected] Centillium Communications Serdar Kiykioglu [email protected] Centillium Communications Tom McKee [email protected] Centillium Communications Ernest Seagraves [email protected] Centillium Communications Paul Stephenson [email protected] Cetecom Andreas Ehre [email protected] Cisco Systems Pan Chou [email protected] Cisco Systems Patrick Gili [email protected] Cisco Systems Jan Hobbel [email protected] Cisco Systems Celite Milbrandt [email protected] Cisco Systems Todd Nielsen [email protected] Cisco Systems William Quiles [email protected] Cisco Systems Mark Russell [email protected] Cisco Systems Jay Shah [email protected] Clare REMtech Stephen Sedio [email protected] Clare REMtech Joe Soriano [email protected] Coilcraft Scott Hess [email protected] Comtest Networks Martin Adcock [email protected] Comtest Networks Walt Kalin [email protected] Conexant Naser Adas [email protected] Conexant Douglas Hacker [email protected] Conexant Jim Webster [email protected] Conklin Corporation Lujack Ewell [email protected] Consultronics Jim Cook [email protected] Consultronics Steve Elder [email protected], [email protected] Consultronics Gary Purser [email protected] Copper Mountain Networks Jonathan Fellows [email protected] Copper Mountain Networks John Nevius [email protected] Coreon Rafael Ben-Michael [email protected] Cornet Technologies Sant Gupta [email protected] Covad Communications Nagaragu Banbara email: Covad Communications Greg F. Wetzel [email protected] CSI/Suttle Apparatus Art Smith [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Veronika Lau [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Thomas Haag [email protected] Deutsche Telekom Michael Langhammer [email protected] DSLB it Hantro Oy Hannu Heusala [email protected] e-Site Karen “KJ” Johnson [email protected] e-Site Bryan Way [email protected] eAccess Ltd. Yoshihiro Obata [email protected] EarthLink, Inc. John Ellis [email protected] EarthLink, Inc. Lorraine Lopez [email protected] East by North Peter Macaulay [email protected] ECI Telecom Joseph Gregory [email protected] ECI Telecom Scott Harris [email protected] ECI Telecom Gigi Karmous-Edwards [email protected] ECI Telecom Moti Morgenstern [email protected] Efficient Networks John Bowers [email protected] Efficient Networks Ken Lauffenburger [email protected] Efficient Networks Scott Ledbetter [email protected] Efficient Networks Tom Willie [email protected]

Efficient Networks I-Chin Yu [email protected] EICON Technology Robert Clarke [email protected] EICON Technology S. Krogh-Nielsen [email protected] ELCON Systemtechnik H.W. Korten [email protected], [email protected] Element 14 Oliver van de Wiel [email protected] Elisa Communications Pasi Juhava [email protected] Ericsson Per-Ove Ekman [email protected] Ericsson Andreas Fischer [email protected] Ericsson Lars-Olof Haster [email protected] Ericsson Piotr Korolkiewicz [email protected] Ericsson Raymond Murphy [email protected] Ericsson Jan Onnegren [email protected] Ericsson Hans-Erhard Reiter [email protected] Ericsson Aheadcom Herbert Maierhofer [email protected] Ericsson Aheadcom Franz Starnberger [email protected] Excelsus Technologies Thomas Murphy [email protected] First Telecom Jeremy Guard [email protected] First Telecom Dan Simpkins [email protected] Fluke Corporation Fred Kaudel [email protected] Fujitsu Robert Daley [email protected] Fujitsu David Jones [email protected] General Bandwidth Paul Carew [email protected] GlobeSpan Jung Lin [email protected] GlobeSpan Leon Paley [email protected] GlobeSpan Sameer Pareek [email protected] GlobeSpan Massimo Sorbara [email protected] Go Digital Rick Brandt [email protected] Gorham & Partners, Ltd. David Greggains [email protected] Harris Corporation Matthew Carroll [email protected] Harris Corporation Tina Poppy [email protected] Harris Corporation Ed Zoiss [email protected] Hekimian Ian Drucker [email protected] Hekimian David Gellerman [email protected] Hekimian Hilary Tomasson [email protected] HyperEdge Corporation Jim Jay [email protected] HyperEdge Corporation Soum Mukherjee [email protected] HyperEdge Corporation Bill Rodey [email protected] Hyundai Electronics Silvia Hong [email protected] Ikanos Communications Reuven Segev [email protected] Ikanos Communications Piyush Sevalia [email protected] imajet.com Leonid Kasparovich [email protected], [email protected] imajet.com Khurshiday Molla [email protected] Integra Telecom Scott Ables [email protected] Integra Telecom Mark Huff [email protected] Integrated Telecom Express Jow Peng [email protected] Intel Marc Abrams [email protected] Intel Anil Agrawal [email protected] Intel Taufique Ahmed [email protected] Intel Craig Cedros [email protected] Intel Chengwu Chen [email protected] Intel Joey Chou [email protected] Intel Mike Cormack [email protected] Intel Nabil Damouny [email protected]

Intel Wey-yi Guy [email protected] Intel Chris Hansen [email protected] Intel Shawn Holiday [email protected] Intel Fu Li [email protected] Intel Jason Liu [email protected] Intel Sven Olav Lund [email protected] Intel Miguel Moreno [email protected] Intel Stan Ng [email protected] Intel Bob Petrella [email protected] Intel Bruce Rose [email protected] Intel Phillip Skeba [email protected] Intel Tony Stougaard [email protected] Intel Susan Tauzer email: Intel Chung Wu [email protected] ITRI Chen-Wen Peng [email protected] ITV Beverly Zaslow [email protected] Jetstream Communications Caglan “Chalan” Aras [email protected] Jetstream Communications Dan Hill [email protected] KPN Telecom Peter-Paul Schackmann [email protected] L.E.A. Philip Golden [email protected] LASAT Networks Andreas Sand [email protected] Legerity Vijay Davar [email protected] Legerity Dilip Patel [email protected] Lenslet Labs Yosefa Assaf [email protected] Lloyd Hayne & Associates Lloyd Hayne [email protected] LSI Logic John DeCelles [email protected] LSI Logic Sang-Soo Lee [email protected] LSI Logic Shih-Ming Shih [email protected] Lucent Technologies Eric Deichstetter [email protected] Lucent Technologies Harry Mildonian, Jr. [email protected] Lucent Technologies Carl Posthuma [email protected] Marconi Communications Phong Khuu [email protected] Marconi Communications Wolfgang Kluge [email protected] Marcus Evans Anna Liza Montenegro [email protected] MediaKube Balaji Kumar [email protected] Metalink Danny Gur [email protected] MetStream Communications Mark Kayser [email protected] Microsoft Corporation David Roberts [email protected] Midcom Dean Huumala [email protected] Mitel Corporation Kelvin Steeden [email protected] Mitel Corporation Mark Wirth [email protected] Mitel Corporation Andrew Yeaton [email protected] Motorola Bernard Dugerdil [email protected] Motorola Dan Grossman [email protected] Motorola John Wood [email protected] National Semiconductor Kien Du Phung [email protected] NEC Paul Cohen [email protected] NEC Henry Do [email protected] NEC Steven Kawamoto [email protected] NEC Donovan Nak [email protected] NEC Takeshi Nishida [email protected] NEC Hiroshi Okado [email protected] NEC Simon Webster [email protected]

NEC Warren Wong [email protected] Net to Net Technologies Chris Carrier [email protected] Net to Net Technologies Kip Lebar [email protected] Net.com Madur Jagannath [email protected] Net.com John Scranton [email protected] Netopia Evan Solley [email protected] Next Level Communications Gregory Drukala [email protected] Next Level Communications Sabit Say [email protected] NHC Communications Marc Bohbot [email protected] NightFire Software Manuel Lozano [email protected] NightFire Software Marcille Sibbitt [email protected] Nokia Gregory Bathrick [email protected] Nokia Mary Lou Bryant [email protected] Nokia Jay Lee [email protected] Nokia Harry Pendolin [email protected] Nokia Tamara Stevens [email protected] Nokia Jouko Tormanen [email protected] Nortel Networks David Allan [email protected] Nortel Networks Marc Doucette [email protected] Nortel Networks Peter Durkee [email protected] Nortel Networks Nabil Gebrael [email protected] Nortel Networks Les Humphrey [email protected] Nortel Networks Plamen Minev [email protected] Northern Line Layers Shane Linse [email protected] NTT Corporation Hiroshi Ishii [email protected] NTT Corporation Masahiko Murakami [email protected] NTT Corporation Toshikazu Murayama [email protected] NTT Corporation Kido Yuichi [email protected] Occam Networks Ron Jeffries [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Yusuke Kamio [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Atsushi Kitai [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Hajime Kobayashi [email protected] OKI Electric Industry Henri Suyderhoud [email protected] Orckit Communications Ephraim Ben-Ishai [email protected] Orckit Communications Lori Prosio [email protected] Orckit Communications Shaw Taylor [email protected] Paradyne Peter Calderon [email protected] Paradyne Ed Landis [email protected] Paradyne Charles Mele [email protected] Paradyne Eric Vallone [email protected] PCTEL James Horng [email protected] PCTEL Khashayar Mirfakhraei [email protected] PCTEL Bob Reid [email protected] Philips Multimedia & Network Joel Salas [email protected] Sys. GmbH Pielle Consulting Carol Friend [email protected] PMC Sierra Duncan Bees [email protected] Polycom Inc. Jack Pines [email protected] Ponte Communications Sandy Campbell [email protected] Ponte Communications Sally Pringle [email protected], [email protected] Ponte Communications Brian Smith [email protected] Ponte Communications Richard Threadgill [email protected] Prestolite Wire/Krone Lewis Hazy [email protected]

Prestolite Wire/Krone Jennifer Janow [email protected] Prestolite Wire/Krone Joe McCaffrey [email protected] Prestolite Wire/Krone Buono Robert [email protected] Prestolite Wire/Krone Kristi Singleton [email protected] Prodigy David Littell [email protected] Pulse Steve Afek [email protected] QS Communications Dirk Radde [email protected] Quintessent Dale Brown [email protected] Quintessent Don Werner [email protected] Qwest Communications Charles Cook [email protected] Radio Shack Kevin Taylor [email protected] RadiSys Corporation Mike Goodey [email protected] RadiSys Corporation Dylon Mirti [email protected] RadiSys Corporation Valerie Young [email protected] Raychem Charles Baumert [email protected] RealTech Systems Corporation Daniel Modzelewski [email protected] Samsung Yang JinYoung [email protected] Samsung Pyoung Soo Kim [email protected] Samsung Chang KiSoo [email protected] Samsung Myoung Dong Lee [email protected] Samsung Sangkee Nam [email protected] Sandi Jerome Computer Consultg Satya Dasa [email protected] SBC Greg Gough [email protected] SBC Tom Starr [email protected] SBC Stephen Aspell [email protected] SBC Ron Brost [email protected] SBC Eugene Edmon [email protected] SBC Mark Hubscher [email protected] SBC Anna Salguero [email protected] SBC Claire Taniguchi [email protected] Schott Corporation Ed Green [email protected] Schott Corporation Bob Husby [email protected] Sedona Networks Balu Madaparthi [email protected] Sedona Networks Andrew McGregor [email protected] Sharegate Giri Amarakone [email protected], [email protected] Sharegate Barry Silver [email protected] Siemens Thomas Gemmer [email protected] Siemens Robert Jenness [email protected] Siemens Neal King [email protected] Siemens Klaus Starnberger [email protected] Siemens Maegerl Gerhard [email protected] Siemens Ramey Juraidini [email protected] Siemens Walter Juras [email protected] Siemens David Lang [email protected] Siemens Sonny Lee [email protected] Siemens Navneet Thapar [email protected] Sigma Tel Aaron Grassian [email protected] Sigma Tel Reed Hinkel [email protected] Sigma Tel Daun Langston [email protected] Simpler Networks Marc Lavoie [email protected] Simpler Networks Mark Peden [email protected] Sonera Corporation Osmo Vuorenmaa [email protected] Sony Electronics, Inc. George Bazylevsky [email protected]

Sphere Communications Brian Hardy [email protected] Sphere Communications David Ward [email protected] Spirent Communications Stephen Courtney [email protected] Spirent Communications Al MacLachlan [email protected] Sprint M. Ali Atashroo [email protected] Sprint Pete Youngberg [email protected] Sprint Shahla Atashroo [email protected] Sprint John Boone [email protected] Sprint Steve Broom [email protected] Sprint Andrew Clark [email protected] Sprint James Davis [email protected] Sprint Mary-Lou Deckert [email protected] Sprint Doug DeGeus [email protected] Sprint Richard Ferguson [email protected] Sprint Wendy Gray [email protected] Sprint Joy Holland [email protected] Sprint David Johnson [email protected] Sprint Gerald Luke [email protected] Sprint Danny Stevens [email protected] Sprint Neal Thornton [email protected] Sprint Linda Thurber [email protected] Sprint Rick Titus [email protected] Sprint Curtis Tucker [email protected] Sprint Andy Zacherl [email protected] STMicroelectronics Gianluca Boiocchi [email protected] Sumitomo Electric Industries Eiji Tomimura [email protected] Sumitomo Electric Industries Masami Ueda [email protected] Symmetricom Jerry Culverhouse [email protected] Symmetricom Barry Dropping [email protected] Tachion Networks Ronald Dapuzzo [email protected] Tamura Corp. of America Jim Coleman [email protected] Tamura Corp. of America Bryan Taylor [email protected] TDK Semiconductor Steve Levy [email protected] TDK Semiconductor Loc Nguyen [email protected] Telcordia Technologies Karen Armington [email protected] Telcordia Technologies Sandip Raval [email protected] TeleChoice Daniel Briere [email protected] Telecom Italia Concita Saracino [email protected] Telecom Italia Mauro Tilocca [email protected] TeleDream Hon Yi [email protected] Telekom Austria Guenter Rosenbichler [email protected] Telia AB Per Stromgren [email protected] Tellabs Matti Reini [email protected] Telocity Joel Williams [email protected] Telrad Eli Elmoalem [email protected] Telrad Moshe Levy [email protected] Telrad Igor Shifrin [email protected] Telrad Caron Tal [email protected] Telrad Iris Ziv [email protected] Telscape Christian Durazo [email protected] Telscape Ida Guevara [email protected] Texas Instruments Gilberto Aguilar [email protected] Texas Instruments Marcia Barnett [email protected]

Texas Instruments Erik Dickens [email protected] Texas Instruments Michael Hanrahan [email protected] Texas Instruments Luis Mirantes [email protected] Texas Instruments Ben Wiseman [email protected] The Oregonian Craig Brown TollBridge Technologies Marty Borden [email protected] Tollgrade Communications Herman Flaminio [email protected] Tollgrade Communications Rocky Flaminio [email protected], [email protected] Toshiba Corporation Yasumasa Kikunaga [email protected] Turnstone Systems Ramon Chea [email protected] University of New Hampshire Stephen Dunhom [email protected] University of New Hampshire Matt Langlois [email protected] University of New Hampshire Stephen Scapicchio [email protected] University of New Hampshire Scott Valcourt [email protected] VDSL Ismo Olkkonen [email protected] Vectris Bob Hackett [email protected] Verizon Michelle Desmond [email protected] Verizon Marc D Galindo [email protected] Verizon Russ Saito [email protected] Verizon Martin Kovach [email protected] Verizon Bob Nelson [email protected] Verizon Jeff Zerfing [email protected] Via Technologies Howen Chen [email protected] ViaGate Technologies Stephen Curtin [email protected] ViaGate Technologies Clifford Young [email protected] VideoTele.com Peter Borgwardt [email protected] VideoTele.com Lee Buchanan [email protected] VideoTele.com Ming Cai [email protected] VideoTele.com Bruce Cochrane [email protected] VideoTele.com Anthony Combs [email protected] VideoTele.com Scott Diamond [email protected] VideoTele.com Kim Godshalk [email protected] VideoTele.com Curtis Haynes [email protected] VideoTele.com Ken Hillen [email protected] VideoTele.com Jeff Jensen [email protected] VideoTele.com Stan Jernberg [email protected] VideoTele.com Michael Johnson [email protected] VideoTele.com Dale Jordan [email protected] VideoTele.com Bob Karl [email protected] VideoTele.com Hector Kesari [email protected] VideoTele.com Sean Kidby [email protected] VideoTele.com Jiou-Pahn Lee [email protected] VideoTele.com Bob Leyendecker [email protected] VideoTele.com Pat Maloney [email protected] VideoTele.com Ken Martin [email protected] VideoTele.com John McClintic [email protected] VideoTele.com Athar Pasha [email protected] VideoTele.com Pravin Rajamoney [email protected] VideoTele.com Mayer Schwartz [email protected] Virata Corporation Martin Jackson [email protected] Virata Corporation Frank Kostello [email protected] Virata Corporation Steve Makgill smakgill@virata Virtual Access Jon Pearce [email protected]

Virtual Access John Slaby [email protected] Vishay Siliconix Exuperto Cabatana [email protected] Vitria Technology Nicos Kekchidis [email protected] Vitria Technology Amitabh Shah [email protected] Voce Communications Rich Cline [email protected] Voce Communications Kevin Kempskie [email protected] Voce Communications Allison Sokol [email protected] VoicePump Steve Ammon [email protected] Voyan Technology Robert Burke [email protected] Westell Ken Burrows [email protected] Westell John Ronk [email protected] Wilcom Allen Buzzell [email protected] Wilcom Mike Hurley [email protected] Wilcom Dennis McCarthy [email protected] Wind River Systems Shankar Jayaraman [email protected] Winfire James Meono [email protected] WorldCom John Miller [email protected] Zyxel Communications Albert Ju [email protected]

THE CSR LIBRARY Subscribers may order copies of documents shown in boldface type from Communications Standards Review, where not controlled. $50.00 for the first document in any order, $40.00 for the second, and $25.00 for each additional document in any order. Volume discounts available. Please contact CSR. Documents listed with © are controlled documents. These documents are not for sale, but we can provide you with the author’s contact information. ETSI meeting documents are also 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 other information 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 Also Publishes:

Communications Standards Summary (ISSN 1075-5721), a quarterly publication reporting on all active projects and recently completed standards of the TIA’s (Telecommunications Industry Association’s) TR-committees. Authorized by TIA. For more details visit http://www.csrstds.com. To receive a complimentary issue of either of CSR’s technical journals, please contact Elaine Baskin, tel +1 650 856-9018, fax +1 650 856- 6591, e-mail: [email protected]

ACRONYM DEFINITIONS

A&T Architecture & Transport (DSL Forum Committee, formerly ATM) AAL ATM Adaptive Layer ADPCM Adaptive Differential PCM ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line ADSLF ADSL Forum ANSI American National Standards Institute ASN Abstract Symbol Notation ATIS Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode B2B Business to Business B2C Business to Consumer B-NT Broadband-Network Termination BLES Broadband Loop Emulation Service BOF Birds of a Feather CHAP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol CID Caller Identification CO Central Office CORBA Common Object Request Broker Architecture CP Customer Premises CPE Customer Premise Equipment CPN Customer Premise Network CVoDSL Channnelized VoDSL DAVIC Digital Audio-Visual Council DHCP Dynamic Host Control Protocol (REF2131) DLC Digital Loop Carrier DRA Dynamic Rate Adaptation DRC Dynamic Rate Change DSL Digital Subscriber Line DSLAM DSL Access Multiplexer DVB Digital Video Broadcasting ECTA European Competitive Telecommunications Association EDSLSG Emerging DSL Study Group (DSL Forum) EMS Element Management System ETIB European Telecoms Intelligence Bulletin ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute FAQ Frequently Asked Question FG Focus Group FR Frame Relay FS Full Service FSAN Full Service Access Networks FUNI Frame based UNI HDSL High-rate Digital Subscriber Line HTML Hyper Text Markup Language HW Hardware IAD Integrated Access Device IDL Interface Design Language IDSL ISDN Digital Subscriber Line IEC International Electrotechnical Committee IETF Internet Engineering Task Force IG Interoperability Group IP Internet Protocol IPCP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (RFC1332) ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network ISP Internet Service Provider ISWG Interoperability Sub Working Group (DSL Forum)

ITU International Telecommunication Union IWF Inter-Working Function LCP Link Control Protocol LES Loop Emulation Service LMS Loop Management System MBN Multiservice Broadband Networks MIB Management Information Base NAI Network Access Identifier (RFC 2468) NAP Network Access Provider NCP Network Connection Point NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement NE Network Element NMS Network Management System NS Noise suppressors NSP Network Service Provider O&NM Operations and Network Management working group (DSL Forum) OAM&P Operations, Administration, Maintenance & Provisioning OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance OSI Open System Interconnection OSS Operations Support Systems PC Personal Computer PCM Pulse Code Modulation PD Proposed Draft PHY Physical Layer PM Performance Management P-n-P Plug and Play POTS Plain Old Telephone Service PPP Point-to-Point Protocol PR Public Relations PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network PVC Permanent Virtual Circuit QoS Quality of Service RFC Designation for an IETF Standard RFI Radio Frequency Interference RSL Reference System Lab SDSL Symmetrical high bit rate Digital Subscriber Line SHDSL Single-line High Speed DSL SIG Special Interest Group SIP Session Initiation Protocol (IETF) SLA Service Level Agreement SMI Structure of Management Information SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol (IETF) SP Service Provider STM Synchronous Transmission Mode SVC Switched Virtual Circuit SW Software T&I Testing & Interoperability (DSL Forum Working Group) TBD To be Determined TCM Time Compression Multiplex TR Technical Report TR Technical Requirements (TIA committee) TSB Telecommunications Standardization Board (ITU) TSWG Transport Sub Working Group (DSL Forum) UDDI Universal Description, Discovery and Integration (industry initiative) VCC Virtual Channel Connection VDSL Very high speed DSL VOD Video on Demand VoDSL Voice over DSL

VoIP Voice Over Internet Protocol WG Working Group xDSL all the different Digital Subscriber Line technology xTU-R All the different Transceiver Units - Remote

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS REVIEW NEW COPYRIGHT POLICY Due to our new, more timely, single report distribution system, copying of individual articles/reports for distribution within an organization is not permitted, unless the user holds a multiple copy license from CSR. The single user electronic version may be mounted on a server whose access is restricted both to a single organization and to one user at a time. You are welcome to forward your single user electronic copy (deleting it on your system) to another user in your organization. CSR offers an Intranet subscription which permits unlimited copies to the subscribing organization.

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

Communications Standards Review regularly covers the following committee meetings: TIA TR-30 Data Transmission Systems & Equipment TR-41 User Premises Telephone Equipment Requirements ITU-T SG15 WP1 Network Access SG15 WP2 Network Signal Processing SG16 Multimedia ETSI AT Access and Terminals TIPHON Voice over Internet TM6 Transmission & Multiplexing DSL Forum xDSL, Access Technologies

Communications Standards Review (ISSN 1064-3907) reports are published within days after the related standards 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 (Corporate license for unlimited copies) are $2,150.00. Submit articles for consideration to: Communications Standards Review, 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. 12232