home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
inet
/
ietf
/
fddimib
/
fddimib-minutes-93mar.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-05-14
|
5KB
|
168 lines
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