Internet Info 1994 March/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso/inet/ietf/93mar/snamib-minutes-93mar.txt

Text File | 1993-05-14 | 9.6 KB | 296 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Barbara Sterling/McDATA

Minutes of the SNA Systems Management BOF (SNAMIB)

The meeting opened with an introduction of all attendees.  A roster, as
well as an Interest Grid, was circulated.  Baktha Muralidharan went over
the Agenda which was then passed without dissent.  The criteria for
forming a working group for a MIB were discussed.  Basically at least
three or more people (one Chair, one author, one editor) who are willing
to participate actively are needed before a working group can be formed.
In addition, a working group's charter preferably should include
milestone dates.

A poll was taken to show interests in the various areas of SNA. The
following is the result.

PU 2.0:                   5

PU 2.1:                   7

PU 4:                     1

PU 5:                     1

APPN (End Node and Network Node):    2

APPC:                     <a lot>

SDLC:                     5

LLC-2:                    4

QLLC:                     1

Channel-attached:         3

Data Link Switching:      4

APPI:                     1



Note:  This poll only reflects the interests of the attendees.  It was
pointed out that for some areas, such as APPI, there may be other
vendors who are interested but not present.

The following issues were brought up during the meeting:

                                   1





   o How well will the MIBs reflect the client's point of view?

   o The relationship between SNMP and NetView:

      -  How do the two relate to each other:  does it mean sending SNMP
         information to NetView?
      -  What is the scope of management by each protocol?

   o Splitting the host management aspect from PU 5.  Some felt that
     there are wider interests in managing SNA topology network than SNA
     hosts.

   o Placement of related areas into one or separate MIBs.  For example,
     should APPN End Node be a separate MIB from the APPN Network Node?
     Should PU 2.1 belong to the APPN MIB (since it describes LEN) or to
     the PU MIBs (with PU 2.0)?  It was decided to defer detailed MIB
     organization discussion until later.


Marshall Rose pointed out the differences between proprietary and
standard MIBs.  A standard MIB should never contain vendor-specific
details but should be a core set of information common to all.  In
addition, a standard MIB loses meaning if it is not widely adopted and
implemented by the community.

Session Two

The meeting was opened by Baktha, who recapped session one.  Baktha
proposed a working group structure composed of four distinct working
groups, based upon the discussions of session one:


WG1:     PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN End Node, APPN Network Node, APPI
WG2:     SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC
WG3:     APPC, LUs
WG4:     Data Link Switching (DLSw)


A series of discussions ensued, involving:


   o The number of working groups needed or desired -- issues included:

      -  There is a need for overall architectural control to ensure all
         MIBs complement each other.
      -  Considerable overlap of participation is expected if there are
         multiple working groups.

                                   2





   -  How to minimize the size and number of mailing lists, including
      having one mailing list even if multiple working groups are
      formed.
   -  To ensure communication between multiple working groups, each
      working group would have other working groups review and
      sign-off documents prior to publishing them.
   -  Relevance of number of vendors/users present at BOF versus
      other interested vendors/users in determining priority of
      certain MIB structures.
   -  Moving DLSw to WG2.
   -  Moving PUT2.0 to WG3.
   -  LUs topic should include LU types 0,1,2,3,4,6.2,7


o IBM indicated that, in approximately one month, it intends to
  submit its current APPN MIB as a Draft Standard in order to aid
  network management vendors in preparing to support IBM's APPN
  functions for the 6611 router.  Discussion followed, including:

   -  Is there a real need to propose this MIB as a standard now,
      assuming a working group is to be formed that addresses this
      issue?
   -  Should the APPN MIB be published as an informational draft
      instead?
   -  The IESG and/or IAB is likely to not accept IBM's submission as
      a Draft Standard and will refer the matter to the established
      working group.
   -  IBM also has an APPC MIB that they plan to submit to the IETF
      in the future.


o The Group developed consensus in these areas:

   -  There will be two working groups:
       * WG1 -- Logical SNA Protocols (includes PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN
         EN, APPN NN, APPI, APPC, all LUs).
       * WG2 -- Data Link Layer (includes SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC,
         DLSw).  The Charter of the group will be to examine the
         issues relating to and publish the MIBs required to enable
         management of logical SNA protocols and their data link
         layers by SNMP, defining capabilities that are similar to
         those provided to IBM's NetView (R) network management
         product.


o Milestones for this Group include:

                                3





      -  The working groups will publish a draft document to the mailing
         list identifying how many MIBs are to be defined within the
         scope of this effort.  This draft will be published within two
         months of the formation of the working groups.
      -  During July 1993, first drafts of the MIBs will be reviewed by
         the mailing list.
      -  The working groups will meet at the July 1993 IETF meeting.
      -  One mailing list will be defined that will include both working
         groups.


A suggestion was made that the Chair post a ``request for
participation'' for these working groups to the IETF mailing list,
encouraging both vendors and users to participate.

Discussions relating to staffing the two working groups were deferred to
BOF Session Three.

Session Three

It was decided to make the Charters more specific and focused than had
previously been decided.  Proposed WG1 will work on MIBs for PUs 2 and
2.1 and LUs 1,2 and 3.  Proposed WG2 will work on MIBs for SDLC and
LLC-2 data link protocols.  The Charters for these first two groups are
not meant to preclude the creation of future working groups to develop
``SNA MIBs'' in other areas of common interest.

It was mentioned that the MIB for LLC-2 will need to be coordinated with
the similar IEEE MIB definition effort.

Several individuals volunteered to edit and/or author the documents and
other volunteered to chair the working groups.

   o Bill Kelly.  Editor Working Group 1 (PU2, PU2.1 and LUs 1,2,3)

   o Shannon Nix and Wayne Clark.  Editors Working Group 2 (LLC-2 and
     SDLC)

   o Baktha Muralidharan, Jeff Hilgeman and Zbigniew Kielczewski.
     Chairs (Area Director to make choices).

   o Baktha Muralidharan, Zbigniew Kielczewski, Bill Kwan and Kitty
     Shih.  Authors.  PUs 2.0/2.1

   o Kitty Shih and Zbigniew Kielczewski.  LUs



                                   4





   o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, Bill Kwan, and Rina Nathaniel.  SDLC

   o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, and Wayne Clark.  LLC-2


Action Items


   o Baktha Muralidharan and Deirdre Kostick are to work on appropriate
     wording of the charters and distribute drafts to the mailing list.

   o Authors are to post their MIBs for WG's 1 and 2 by April 30th.


Attendees

Michael Allen            [e-mail]
David Arneson            [e-mail]
David Battle             [e-mail]
Mahesh Bhatia            [e-mail]
Fred Bohle               [e-mail]
Michael Bowman           [e-mail]
Jeff Case                [e-mail]
Jia-bing Cheng           [e-mail]
Anthony Chow             [e-mail]
Wayne Clark              [e-mail]
Tracy Cox                [e-mail]
Wayne Cullen             [e-mail]
Kishan Dudkikar          [e-mail]
Eric Fleischman          [e-mail]
Cleve Graves             [e-mail]
Jeff Hilgeman            [e-mail]
Bill Kelly               [e-mail]
Mark Kepke               [e-mail]
Kenneth Key              [e-mail]
Zbigniew Kielczewski     [e-mail]
Moshe Kochinski          [e-mail]
Deirdre Kostick          [e-mail]
William Kwan             [e-mail]
Patrick Leung            [e-mail]
William McKenzie         [e-mail]
Robert Moskowitz         [e-mail]
Satinder Mundra          [e-mail]
Baktha Muralidharan      [e-mail]
Rina Nathaniel           rina!rnd![e-mail]
Tom Nisbet               [e-mail]
Shannon Nix              [e-mail]
Bill Norton              [e-mail]
Eric Olinger             [e-mail]
Jon Penner               [e-mail]
David Perkins            [e-mail]
Thomas Pusateri          [e-mail]

                                   5





Owen Reddecliffe         [e-mail]
Dan Romascanu            [e-mail]
Marshall Rose            [e-mail]
Rick Royston             [e-mail]
Joseph Rumolo            attmail!jrumolo
Chris Shaw               [e-mail]
Kitty Shih               [e-mail]
Timon Sloane             [e-mail]
Stuart Stanley           [e-mail]
Barbara Sterling         [e-mail]
Stephen Tsun             [e-mail]
Steven Waldbusser        [e-mail]
James Watt               [e-mail]
Kiho Yum                 [e-mail]



                                   6