Internet Standards/CD1.mdf/INET/IETF/TRMON/93JUL.MIN

Text File | 1993-09-22 | 7.6 KB | 199 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Michael Erlinger/Harvey Mudd College

Minutes of the Token Ring Remote Monitoring Working Group (TRMON)


Introductions

A small group of individuals was present, so we went around the room
giving short personal introductions.


TRMON Status

A final call was made for comments.  The comments received were
incorporated into the next draft, which is available as an
Internet-Draft (draft-ietf-rmonmib-trmib-01.txt).  This document was
also forwarded to the Network Management Area Director with a
recommendation that it become the TRMON Proposed Standard.  At the
working group meeting, it was pointed out that the Network Management
Area Directorate has started looking at the document and that one action
item is to ensure that there are no conflicts with the Token Ring MIB
(RFC 1231).  Once the Network Management Area Directorate is satisfied
with the document, it will be forwarded to the IESG.


Token Ring IEEE Efforts and Relationship to TR RMON

The IEEE 802.5 committee is working on a new draft.  The effort is
directed towards clarification and explanation of the existing standard
(in particular, clarification efforts will center on:  MAC state tables,
MAC insertion, and various timers).  The 802.5 committee is meeting the
week of 12 July 93 to discuss comments on draft three.  Draft four
should be available in September 93, with a conclusion of the process
scheduled for March 94.  Anyone interested in being on the IEEE 802.5
mailing list as an observer needs to contact Mike Erlinger.  Whatever
changes are made in 802.5 would be considered in a Draft Standard TRMON.


RFC 1271 Advancement Process

Once TRMON is released as a Proposed Standard, the TRMON Working Group
will be disbanded and the RMONMIB Working Group reformed for
consideration of RFC 1271 advancement.  A strawman charter was
presented.  A draft of the RMONMIB Charter is at the end of these minutes.
Three discussions ensued; the first concerned the milestone dates.  It
was decided that the date for the working group recommendation should be
March 94, since November 93 is not realistic.

In the second discussion, it was agreed that the group should attempt to
forward a recommendation that follows the second possibility in the
charter, e.g., a new draft with minor modifications.

The third discussion area was a first pass list of RFC 1271 concerns.
The following list presents only the areas for working group discussion
(while the small group had various ``solutions,'' the effort was
directed only at listing areas of concern).  Once the RMONMIB Working
Group is reconstituted, there will be an expanded discussion of RFC 1271
concerns.  Thus, do not consider the list as final---just pet peeves of
the attendees.


   o Row Status Versus Entry Status
     A long discussion ensued concerning pay now, pay later concerns for
     making this change.  There was loose consensus in the group that
     since there is a desire for an RMON II, and since RMON II will be a
     distinct MIB from RMON I, that RMON II is the place for this major
     change (easier to market/sell this change with new functionality).

   o History Group Break Up
     Currently, Token Ring assumes a break up in the history group.
     This is only a reorganization and adds no new functionality.

   o Packet Distribution for History
     Packet distribution occurs in the TR history tables.  Numerous
     people would like it to also be present in RMONMIB. The major
     reason for not including it is space consideration (agent).
     Depending on one's view, this change may be considered as either
     minor or major.

   o Clarification of Status States
     Providing a state diagram and/or more text would clear up concerns
     with the row status field.

   o Incorporation of SNMPv2 Macros
     The Area Directorate's schedule indicates that a new draft should
     use the new SMI, but must not use any type that will break SNMPv1
     systems.

   o Events in SNMPv1 versus those in SNMPv2---another issue for RMON
     II.

   o Clarification of Filters ``Not'' Mask
     It was agreed that strict reading of the current text provides a
     correct interpretation, but that more clarification would reduce
     questions and concerns.

   o Order Applied to Dependent Tables
     Nowhere in RFC 1271 is it explicitly stated that all orders of
     setting variables in dependent tables are acceptable, i.e., the
     specification does not specify a particular order.

   o Clarify indexing in each table.

   o The RFC 1212 reference to IP address representation seems to be
     missed by numerous RMON readers, and the text should be repeated in
     RMON.

   o Log Entry Standardization
     It is probably impossible to specify fields for log entries, but
     the RMON document should provided a list of recommended entries.

   o RMON Trap Document
     Should the document be recreated?

   o Packet Match Event Removal
     Concern about the possibility of generating large numbers of
     events.

   o Clarify whether a probe ``hears'' its own packets.


DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----

     Remote Network Monitoring (RMONMIB)

     Charter

     Chair(s):
         Mike Erlinger  <[e-mail]>

     Network Management Area Director(s)
         Marshall T. Rose <[e-mail]>

     NM-Directorate Consultant:
         Steven Waldbusser <[e-mail]>

     Mailing lists:
          General Discussion:[e-mail]
          To Subscribe:      [e-mail]
          Archive:           /pub/rmon @jarthur.claremont.edu

     Description of Working Group:

          The RMON working group is chartered to prepare a recommendation to
          the IESG evaluating RFC~1271 (the RMON MIB) with respect to the
          standards track.

          The recommendation will document implementation, interoperability,
          and deployment experience.  If this experience suggests that changes
          should be made to the document, a new draft may be prepared.  The
          recommendation will report one of four outcomes:

             - that RFC~1271 should be advanced from proposed to draft status,
               without changes (if no problems are found);

             - that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace
               RFC~1271, and be designated a draft standard (if only minor
               changes are made);

             - that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace
               RFC~1271, and be designated a proposed standard (if major
               changes or feature enhancements are made); or,

             - that RFC~1271 should be designated as historic (if this
               technology is problematic).


     Goals and Milestones:

        Jul 93 Re-activation of WG, call for discussion of experiences.

        Sep 93 Classification and evaluation of experiences.

        Nov 93 Submit recommendation, possibly with new draft, to IESG.



Attendees

David Arneson            [e-mail]
Jeff Case                [e-mail]
David Engel              [e-mail]
Michael Erlinger         [e-mail]
Steven Horowitz          [e-mail]
Jeff Hughes              [e-mail]
Carl Madison             [e-mail]
Richard McBride          [e-mail]
Keith McCloghrie         [e-mail]
James Reeves             [e-mail]
Dan Romascanu            [e-mail]
Jean-Bernard Schmitt     [e-mail]
Richard Sweatt           [e-mail]
Steven Waldbusser        [e-mail]
Peter Wilson             [e-mail]
Dirk Wisse               [e-mail]