home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
92mar
/
snmpagen-minutes-92mar.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-17
|
2KB
|
60 lines
This is only a rough draft - Megan 04/20/92
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by David Perkins/SynOptics Communications
SNMP Agent Description BOF Minutes
A Birds of a Feather was held on Tuesday to present the
contents of the recently published RFC1303 and to
gather feedback from the attendees. Leading the
presentation was David Perkins from SynOptics with
assistance from Marshall Rose from Dover Beach Consulting,
one of the joint authors of the RFC.
RFC 1303, an informational document, proposes a method
to describe the MIB objects implemented by an SNMP
agent using an ASN.1 macro. This concise and precise
technique provides a crisp communication between agent
implementors and users of an agent.
The set of overheads that were presented are included
in the proceedings. The overheads included a description
of the proposal, uses of the proposal, problems with
the proposal, and suggested changes.
There were close to 80 people in attendance with a good
mix of agent technology vendors, managed device vendors
(i.e., those who ship devices with agents), network
management system vendors, and users of network management
systems.
The feedback to the presentation was generally that the
proposal in RFC1303 was timely and pretty much on the
mark. However, most people found the proposal to have
the problems as presented in the BOF. The problems ranked
in order of importance were: 1) missing support for traps;
2) problems in applying to SMUX type agents; 2) incomplete
definition of syntax refinements; 3) document problems
with row creation and deletion; 4) fuzzy definition of
MIB groups; and 5) potential for a large number of
macro instances.
The attendees were urged to use the macro defined by the
proposal to describe some agents to determine if there was
a good fit and report the results back to the authors.
There was some interest in forming a working group and
taking the proposal on the standards track. This action
was not the intent of the BOF. Further consultation with
the authors, the network management director, and interested
parties was needed to determine a course of action.