home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1997 December
/
Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso
/
ietf
/
decnetiv
/
decnetiv-minutes-90july.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-17
|
3KB
|
77 lines
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Jon Saperia/DEC
DECNETIV Minutes
1. An early draft with 28 groups was distributed for discussion
purposes, so that we could begin the process of removing redundant
or unnecessary variables.
2. It was agreed that we would reorganize the MIB into groups that
correspond to the various layers of software found in DECNet Phase
4. For example, the X.25, Network, Session, Routing, Data Link,
and End Communication Layer Groups. This will also make it easier
to use the same approach to optional and mandatory variables that
is used for the Internet Standard MIB. For example, X.25 and all
variables in that branch of the tree will be mandatory in
implementations that support X.25 and not required for those
implementations which do not provide X.25 service. More work is
needed in this area and I will attempt to recast what we have
defined into these groups.
3. Several people expressed the desire to keep the total number of
variables down to less than 80. We will attempt this, however;
since a prime purpose of the MIB is to allow DECNet Phase IV
objects (including end systems) to be managed via SNMP, more DECNet
variables will have to be implemented for the MIB than are
currently found in some of the implementations in router products.
4. Each branch of the tree will be further devided into three
sub-groups, these will be the parameters, counters and events
sub-groups. In order to support the events sub-groups we will be
defining DECNet Phase IV traps. Steve Willis will be writing up
something to cover experimental trap id's.
5. For the sake of consistency each variable will have deciv prepended
to it.
6. There will be a Working Group meeting before the October INTEROP
time-frame so that these changes can be reviewed. Since a number
of vendors have already implemented some portion of a DECNet MIB in
their proprietary MIBs this will be an opportunity to merge them.
7. Where information is available in other MIBs, we will not include
that as part of the DECNet phase IV mib. An example of this is the
new ethernet MIB.
8. After the meeting, it was suggested that we may want to consider
publishing the MIB in portions such as the Network Layer or DECNet
Phase IV Routing MIB rather than waiting to do the entire piece at
once. Comments on this appoach would be appreciated.
9. Members of this list will be contacted separately to set up the
September Meeting.
Attendees
1
Chris Chiotasso chris@sparta.com
Farokh Deboo fjd@interlink.com
Nadya El-Afandi nadya@network.com
Stanley Froyd sfroyd@salt.acc.com
Charles Hedrick hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu
Steven Hunter hunter@ccc.mfecc.arpa
David Perkins dave_perkins@3com.com
Jonathan Saperia saperia%tcpjon@decwrl.dec.com
Steve Willis swillis@wellfleet.com
2