home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
-
-
- Reported by Jeff Case/UTenn
-
- Minutes of the FDDI MIB Working Group (FDDIMIB)
-
- The meeting was called to order the Chair, Jeff Case. Twenty-one
- members, plus the Chair were present. The Working Group endorsed the
- selection of a new editor, Anil Rijsinghami, who will assist Jeff Case.
- After introductions the proposed Agenda was approved and a Secretary,
- Jack Brown, was selected.
-
- There were no new issues on the mailing list.
-
- Jim Reeves brought up the problem of the 7.3 SMT prefix.
-
-
- o No one in the foreign community would understand.
- o A new prefix needed to be selected that would not conflict with the
- present naming of RFC 1285 and ANSI X3T9.5 .
-
-
- Action Item: Direct the editor to replace SMT 7.3 with FDDI MIB.
-
- Ron Macken had three editorial issues on the draft. Editor's Note (md):
- A detailed listing of the editorial issues and other proposed
- modifications is available via ftp under fddimib-minutes-93mar.txt.
- Refer to Section 1.2 of the Proceedings for retrieval instructions.
-
- 1. Page 26 and 27. MAC returning ``0''. Question: Should we add an
- additional sentence to return ``0'' -if not applicable or no index?
-
- Ron Jacoby though(t) making a ``0'' in SNMP is making an optional
- variable which is not too good. It is hard to implement, don't do it.
-
- Marshall Rose was concerned a ``0'' meaning two things provides
- ambiguity. Marshall also thought it was not too hard to implement the
- way it was.
-
- There were two proposals:
-
- 1. Ron Jacoby - ``Leave the intent the same but make minor changes in
- text to clarify''.
-
- 2. Ronald Macken - ``Add a sentence to return'' ``0'' if not applicable
- or no index.
-
- The Group consensus was to:
-
- --Change 1 in Syntax to ``0'' --If there is no value in the index return ``0''
-
- (Ronald Macken was happy and removed his proposal.)
-
- 1
-
-
-
- 2. Page 30 - word spelled wrong - address
-
- 3. Page 43-44 - change from milliseconds to nanoseconds
-
- Jim Reeves brought up the point that the station ID is confusing.
- Should we clear it up here or align with ANSI? The Group agreed that
- after ``station'' add ``i.e., SMT entity''.
-
- Jeff Case brought up the following:
-
- 1. Page 17 - SMT configuration policy would always return a ``0''
- value.
-
- 2. Page 23 - bad value error is version 1 dependent. Should we change
- to - out of range value (protocol independent)?
-
- Dan Romascanu thought more descriptive text is needed relating to SNMP
- Version 1 to SNMP Version 2.
-
- The Group decided towards protocol independent. (The same problem also
- appears on page 58.)
-
- 3. Page 29 - clarify where the MAC address is found or would it be
- better to simply state the address?
-
- The Group agreed that the address should be stated here.
-
- Marshall Rose assumed the duties as Chair at 10:25 a.m. Marshall
- continued with Jeff's concerns.
-
- 4. Page 58 - ``Hardware Present'' implied ``implementation specific''.
-
- The Group consensus was to change the wording to:
-
- ``If value is false, (it) is handled in the manner as specified in
- 6.4.4. If not present, return no such or return a value.'' (Similar
- text also on Page 36, and pages 48, 49 - ``for ports''
-
- By Group consensus:
-
- Action Item - Ask the editor to make the changes to the document as
- agreed by the Group here. Place the new draft on Internet for comment
- and then submit forward. Also agreed was that Version 2 issues be
- separate.
-
- Traps
-
- Five conditions are implementable. Four events suspect are
- implementable. EV overflow - might be important, but not enough
- information is available to implement.
-
- There was a discussion on whether there should be separate Trap Tables.
- Marshall Rose thought the tables should be second MIB in the original
-
- 2
-
-
-
-
-
- document. There was no final decision but a strawman indicated that
- five members definitely want a trap document. No one definitely did
- not.
-
- Ron Macken took the Action Item to produce a strawman document with the
- following instructions:
-
-
- o A simpler, more concise strawman document with traps stands a
- better chance.
- o Leave the MIB the way it is now so the MIB will work with SNMP
- Version 1 besides SNMP Version 2.
- o Leave traps out.
-
-
- The next Working Group meeting will be planned for the Amsterdam IETF
- Meeting to handle the Trap document and V2 compliance issues unless
- everything gets pushed back on the mailing list. Friday would be the
- best day. NOTE: Ron Macken has a working implementation of the MIB with
- the 6.2 draft.
-
- Attendees
-
- Michael Anello mike@xlnt.com
- David Battle battle@cs.utk.edu
- Jeffrey Berk berk@ctron.com
- John Boatright bryan_boatright@ksc.nasa.gov
- Caralyn Brown cbrown@wellfleet.com
- Jack Brown jbrown@huachuca-emh8.army.mil
- Jeff Case case@cs.utk.edu
- Anthony Chow chow_a@wwtc.timeplex.com
- David Engel david@ods.com
- Wayne Foco foco@ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com
- Paul Franchois paulf@bldrdoc.gov
- Kenneth Giusti kgiusti.chipcom.com
- John Hopprich hopprich@davidsys.com
- Ronald Jacoby rj@sgi.com
- Merike Kaeo merike@alw.nih.gov
- Kenneth Key key@cs.utk.edu
- Evan McGinnis bem@3com.com
- Rina Nathaniel rina!rnd!rndi@uunet.uu.net
- Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com
- Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
- Steve Suzuki suzu@fet.com
-
-
-
- 3
-