home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
inet
/
ietf
/
ifmib
/
ifmib-charter.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-05-14
|
4KB
|
87 lines
Interfaces MIB (ifmib)
----------------------
Charter
Chair(s):
Ted Brunner <tob@thumper.bellcore.com>
Network Management Area Director(s)
Marshall Rose <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Mailing lists:
General Discussion:if-mib@thumper.bellcore.com
To Subscribe: if-mib-request@thumper.bellcore.com
Archive:
Description of Working Group:
The Interfaces MIB working group is chartered to accomplish two tasks.
First, to develop a collection of managed objects which model the
relation between different entities in the datalink and physical
layers. The working group will explore different modeling
approaches in order to develop a collection of objects which is
both correct in the modeling sense and has an acceptable impact (if
any) on the interfaces table from MIB-II and all media MIB modules
on the standards track or under development by a working group.
The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with
the SNMP framework.
Second, to prepare a recommendation to the IESG evaluating RFCs
1229 (the if-extensions MIB), 1231 (the token-ring MIB), 1304 (the
SMDS MIB), and 1398 (the ether-like MIB) with respect to the
standards track.
The recommendation will document implementation, interoperability,
and deployment experience. If this experiences suggests that
changes should be made to the documents, new drafts may be
prepared.
For RFCs 1229, 1231, and 1304, the recommendation will report one
of four outcomes for each RFC: that the RFC should be advanced
from proposed to draft status, without changes (if no problems are
found); that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace
the RFC, and be designated a draft standard (if only minor changes
are made); that a draft prepared by the working group, should
replace the RFC, and be designated a proposed standard (if major
changes or feature enhancements are made); or, that the RFC should
be designated as historic (if this technology is problematic).
For RFC 1398, the recommendation will report one of five outcomes:
that the RFC should be advanced from draft to full status, without
changes (if no problems are found); that a draft prepared by the
working group, should replace the RFC, and be designated a full
standard (if only editorial changes are made); that a draft
prepared by the working group, should replace the RFCs, and be
designated a draft standard (if only minor changes are made); that
a draft prepared by the working group, should replace the RFC, and
be designated a proposed standard (if major changes or feature
enhancements are made); or, that the RFC should be designated as
historic (if this technology is problematic).
Goals and Milestones:
Jul 93 Post the if layering document as an Internet Draft.
Sep 93 Submit the if layering document to the IESG for consideration as a
Proposed Standard.
Sep 93 Issue a call for implementation and operations experience with RFCs
1229, 1231, 1304, and 1398.
Oct 93 Evaluate experience and if necessary post revised MIBs as Internet
Drafts.
Dec 93 Submit recommendations on the various MIBs to the IESG.
Internet Drafts:
No Current Internet drafts.
Request For Comments:
None to date.