Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/93mar/frnetmib-minutes-93mar.txt

Text File | 1993-05-10 | 8KB | 199 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by Deirdre Kostick/Bellcore

Minutes of the Frame Relay Service MIB BOF (FRNETMIB)

The purpose of the Frame Relay Service MIB BOF was to determine if there
was interest in writing a standard Frame Relay Network MIB and to
determine if the MIB should be developed in the IETF.

Tracy Cox presented the purpose of the BOF, the proposed scope of the
MIB, and discussed the relation to the Frame Relay Forum Technical
Committee activities.  The proposed MIB has the following
scope/features:


   o The MIB will be an SNMPv1 MIB.

   o It will contain read-only objects.

   o It is intended for use by end-customers (versus service providers)
     to manage their portion of a Frame Relay network.

   o It is intended to support fault detection, performance monitoring,
     and configuration for Frame Relay interfaces.

   o It is NOT intended to be a switch MIB, and will NOT include managed
     objects for switching elements and related internal aspects of the
     network supporting Frame Relay.


Tracy discussed the relation with the existing Frame Relay DTE MIB
(RFC1315).  Based on discussion with RFC1315 authors and others, Tracy
determined that the Frame Relay DTE MIB was not sufficient to manage the
Frame Relay interface from the network perspective.  For example, a
Frame Relay Network MIB would need bi-directional information on Frame
Relay parameters (CIR, Be, Bc), and an end-to-end view of the network,
neither of which are supported in RFC1315.

The Frame Relay Network MIB would not include managed objects for the
physical layer.  Existing physical layer MIBs (e.g., DS1 and DS3) would
be used.

There was agreement with the scope of the MIB. The BOF attendees also
agreed that:  a) there was interest in writing a standard MIB, and b)
that the IETF was the appropriate body for the development of standard
MIBs.

There was discussion on the relationship of the efforts in the Frame
Relay Forum and the proposed ATMMIB Working Group.  These issues were
discussed at length during George Mouradian's presentation.

                                   1





George presented ideas on service management -- Architecture Principles
for Service MIBs.  George indicated that standards for service
management are necessary, and that Frame Relay and ATM services are good
candidates for standardized MIBs.  Both the user and the vendor
communities benefit.  George raised questions and issues related to the
proliferation of MIBs and of different groups working on the same
management issues.

George indicated that he felt it was premature to start a separate
effort in the IETF and that it was necessary to give the Frame Relay
Forum more time to complete their efforts.  There was lively discussion
on this topic.  Caralyn Brown indicated that the intent was not to
discontinue the work in the Frame Relay Forum, rather it was to follow
the process used for development of RFC1294.  Andy Malis indicated that
for RFC1294 the work in the IETF was brought into the Frame Relay Forum,
and that there were ongoing efforts to keep the Frame Relay Forum
informed of the IETF work and to gain their input and consensus.  Both
Caralyn Brown and Andy Malis were involved in this coordination effort.

Ken Rodemann indicated that he agreed that it was unwise to assume that
the IETF would ``rubber-stamp'' a MIB brought in from an outside group.
However, he felt that it would be wiser to let the work continue in the
Frame Relay Forum before bringing it into the IETF.

Doug Kay supported continuing the work in the Frame Relay Forum since
there was expertise on Frame Relay; however, Doug also indicated that he
felt that the IETF offered the network management and SNMP-related
expertise that would be necessary to develop a quality MIB. Doug
indicated that he would feel comfortable if it was clear that the Frame
Relay Forum was responsible for defining the Managed Objects and that
the IETF Group would be responsible for ``mibification''.

There was discussion on the timing of the establishment of the proposed
Working Group and the process for coordination with the Frame Relay
Forum work.  Deirdre Kostick suggested that the Forum continue to work
on the proposed list of managed objects via email and at their June
meeting, develop a consensus on the set of objects.  This set of objects
would be used by the proposed IETF Working Group to begin MIB definition
at the July IETF meeting.  James Watt suggested that an interim meeting
should be held in conjunction with the June Frame Relay Forum meeting.

Results of the BOF


   o There is interest in writing a Frame Relay Network Service MIB. The
     scope of the MIB is consistent with the scope identified during
     Tracy Cox's presentation.  That is, the MIB will be an SNMPv1 MIB
     intended to support end-customer network management for their Frame
     Relay interfaces.  It is not intended to be a switching system MIB.

   o There is agreement that a working group should be created to
     develop the Frame Relay Network Service MIB.


                                   2





   o The first meeting (assuming approval of the Working Group by the
     yet-to-be-named Network Management Area Director) will be June
     28-30 with the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee in Chicago.
     Meeting logistics will be posted on the mailing list.

   o The Frame Relay Network Service MIB will be based on the managed
     objects identified by the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee.
     There will be ongoing coordination efforts between the two groups.

   o The proposed schedule for deliverables from the Working Group are
     indicated below in the proposed Charter.

   o There will be coordination with the proposed ATMMIB Working Group
     to insure that common elements are consistently modeled.


Proposed Charter of Working Group


   o Tracy Cox will Chair the Group.

   o Messages for Group discussion can be sent to
     [e-mail].  Subscription requests for the discussion
     list should be sent to [e-mail].

   o To write a standard Frame Relay Network Service MIB based on the
     set of managed objects identified by the Frame Relay Forum
     Technical Committee.  Close coordination with the Frame Relay Forum
     is essential.  Once chartered, this Working Group will also
     coordinate their efforts with the proposed ATMMIB Working Group.

   o The goals of the Group are to complete the first draft of an
     Internet-Draft by July of 1993 and to submit the final draft of the
     document for approval as an RFC by November of 1993.


Attendees

Masuma Ahmed             [e-mail]
Rich Bowen               [e-mail]
Caralyn Brown            [e-mail]
Theodore Brunner         [e-mail]
John Chang               [e-mail]
Anthony Chow             [e-mail]
Tracy Cox                [e-mail]
Manuel Diaz              [e-mail]
Ken Hayward              [e-mail]
Don Hofacker             [e-mail]
Doug Kay                 [e-mail]
Kenneth Key              [e-mail]
Zbigniew Kielczewski     [e-mail]

                                   3





Moshe Kochinski          [e-mail]
Deirdre Kostick          [e-mail]
Patrick Leung            [e-mail]
Andrew Malis             [e-mail]
Matthew Morrisey         [e-mail]
George Mouradian         [e-mail]
Rina Nathaniel           rina!rnd![e-mail]
Louise Reingold          [e-mail]
Bradley Rhoades          [e-mail]
Kenneth Rodemann         [e-mail]
Dan Romascanu            [e-mail]
Marshall Rose            [e-mail]
Kaj Tesink               [e-mail]
James Watt               [e-mail]
Kiho Yum                 [e-mail]



                                   4