Internet Info 1994 March/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso/inet/ietf/oim/oim-minutes-90dec.txt

Text File | 1993-02-17 | 6.3 KB | 155 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_



Reported by Brian Handspicker/Digital

OIM Minutes

Agenda


   o RFC 1189 CMIP and CMOT Implementors Agreements for the Internet
   o OIM-MIB-II
   o General OSI MIB Extensions
   o Interoperability Testing


RFC 1189 CMIP/CMOT

RFC 1189 has been published as a Proposed Standard.  Pending major
objections on the mailing list, we agreed to remove the word
``substrings'' from the 1st bullet in section 4.3.  This would remove
the explicit exemption for support of substrings in filter expressions.
In addition, the editor agree to clarify the specific 1990 version of
ISO CMIS/P to be used, with the intent to use the final 1990 version.
Finally, we discussed at length the 3 different potential protocols
supported by 1189.  1189 specifies support of either a CMIP application
layer over Lightweight Presentation Process over TCP/IP or, a CMIP
application layer over an OSI upper layer stack.  The OSI upper layers
could in turn be based on either a full set of OSI lower layers or on
ISO Transport over TCP/IP using agreements specified in RFC 1006.

Clearly, a version of CMIP over a full OSI stack will be important for
future OSI-based Internet backbone and sub-nets.  Some version of CMIP
should also be defined for IP-based Internet backbone and sub-nets.
Since they provide similar functionality, CMOT based on LPP and a CMIP
based on 1006 could be considered redundant.  At the Tallahassee IETF
meeting, it was recommended that all future protocols which require OSI
upper layer functionality over IP-based protocols make use of RFC 1006.
As a result, a couple of suggestions have been made that the
specification for CMIP over LPP be removed from RFC 1189, and the
potential use of RFC 1006 be clarified in the current text.
Editorially, this is a minor change involving the removal of the one
page which discusses how to layer CMIP over LPP and deletion of the
phrase ``CMOT and'' from every instance of ``CMOT and CMIP''. Otherwise
the technical implementors' agreements in RFC 1189 remain unchanged.
Most known implementations of CMOT have been based on the LPP
implementation distributed with ISODE. To convert these CMOT
implementations to CMIP 1006 implementation requires little more than a

                                   1






one line change to a makefile to reference the full ISODE library
instead of the LPP library.  While the wireline difference is
significant, ISODE and RFC 1006 has been well exercised over the last 2
years.  And, the CMIP application layer agreements specific in RFC 1189
remain unchanged.  Thus, the suggestion to remove the specification of
CMOT in favor of an RFC 1006-based CMIP is a relatively minor technical
change to the existing RFC. It was pointed out that this change would
align RFC 1189 with existing GOSIP and DOD requirements for OSI
management.

OIM-MIB-II

OIM-MIB-II was announced as being considered by the IESG as a proposed
standard.  No objections or major corrections were offered by the
meeting participants.

General OSI MIB Extensions
Once again, we have wrestled with the problem of mapping MIB definitions
that follow the IETF SMI into a form supported by the ISO SMI. The IETF
SMI was based on a very early draft of the ISO SMI. The ISO SMI
continued to evolve as early problems were resolved.  The IETF SMI has
not kept pace.  The ISO SMI is now stable and required by most OSI-based
management systems.  Unfortunately most of the MIBs being defined within
the IETF are only satsifying the requirements of the IETF SMI, not
taking into account the minor additional requirements for OSI
management.  This requires additional work to map these IETF SMI-based
MIBs into ISO SMI. This is what the OIM-MIB-II document does for MIB-II.
Unfortunately, the OIM Working Group cannot hope to keep up with all of
the MIB work currently being progressed within the IETF and generate MIB
extensions and mappings for each new MIB. In addition, some of the MIB
Working Groups are facing the reverse problem - trying to map ISO SMI
defined MIBs (e.g., FDDI) into the IETF SMI. The most reasonable
solution to this problem would be to put differences about protocols
(SNMP and CMOT) behind us and encourage the individual MIB Working
Groups to develop MIB definitions that support both the IETF SMI and ISO
SMI. This would ensure that all MIB definitions - which really just
defined manageable resources, without any dependence on management
protocols - were aligned across whatever management protocol or
management system was used by an administrator for managing an
environment.

If we do not resolve this issue, we run the risk of having different
management definitions (MIBs) for the same resources.  This would waste
resources both within the IETF as well as within every vendor and many
customers.  We agreed to raise this to the IESG for reconsideration.

Interoperability Testing


                                   2






We discussed future interoperability testing, and an open invitation was
made by Brian Handspicker to coordinate another round of
interoperability testing.  Any vendors interested in testing RFC 1189
CMOT or CMIP are invited to send mail to [e-mail].

Attendees

Vikas Aggarwal           [e-mail]
Steve Alexander          [e-mail]
Jack Brown               [e-mail]
Gregory Bruell           [e-mail]
Jeffrey Case             [e-mail]
Curtis Cox               [e-mail]
Tony Hain                [e-mail]
Brian Handspicker        [e-mail]
Holly Knight             [e-mail]
Lee Labarre
Nik Langrind             [e-mail]
Walter Lazear            [e-mail]
John Lunny               [e-mail]
Lynn Monsanto            [e-mail]
Bahaa Moukadam
Oscar Newkerk            [e-mail]
Fred Ostapik             [e-mail]
Mark Seger               [e-mail]
Theresa Senn             [e-mail]
Daisy Shen               [e-mail]
Daisy Shen               [e-mail]
Mark Sleeper             [e-mail]
Sudhanshu Verma          [e-mail]
A. Lee Wade              [e-mail]
David Waitzman           [e-mail]
Linda Winkler            [e-mail]
Fei Xu                   [e-mail]
Jeff Young               [e-mail]



                                   3