Current Meeting Report
Slides


2.4.6 Evolution of SNMP (eos)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       http://www.snmp.com/eos -- Additional EOS Web Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modifield: 06/24/2002

Chair(s):
Glenn Waters <gww@nortelnetworks.com>
Dale Francisco <dfrancisco@acm.org>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: eos@ops.ietf.org
To Subscribe: eos-request@ops.ietf.org
In Body: (un)subscribe
Archive: ftp://ops.ietf.org/pub/lists/eos*
Description of Working Group:
A small number of enhancements to the SNMP protocol would provide a substantial improvement to the protocol in terms of utility and efficiency. The enhancements must fall within the existing SNMP architecture as defined in RFC 2571. The intent of the working group is to focus on enhancements that may be easily defined and implemented which should then promote rapid acceptance and deployment. New protocol operations are within the realm of acceptable enhancements that may be defined.

The initial work items include:

- A standards-track document defining the mechanism by which the capabilities of a SNMP entity may be determined. This document should also define the interoperability requirements of the SNMP protocol when extensions are present and when they are absent;

- A standards-track document defining a mechanism for efficient retrieval, creation, and deletion of rows in tables;

- A standards-track document defining a mechanism used to delete an entire subtree of managed object instances. This could, for example, be used to remove all information related to a particular username in the SNMP administrative framework;

- A standards-track document defining a mechanism to provide for compression of object identifiers to remove as much redundant information as possible in the payload of the SNMP message; and,

- A standards-track document defining a mechanism for bulk transfer of SNMP data.

Some of the documents may be combined if the working group so decides.

No additional work items may be taken on by the working group until this initial set of work is close to completion. Additional work will have to be approved by the IESG and the IAB.

Goals and Milestones:
FEB 01  Working group chartered
FEB 01  First revisions of the documents
APR 01  Second revisions of the documents
JUN 01  Third revisions of the documents
SEP 01  Last set of revisions of all documents
SEP 01  WG Last Call for all documents and submit then to AD for consideration as Proposed Standard
OCT 01  Shutdown or re-charter
Internet-Drafts:
  • - draft-ietf-eos-snmpxproto-mib-02.txt
  • - draft-ietf-eos-snmp-bulkdata-01.txt
    • No Request For Comments

    Current Meeting Report

     Final minutes of the EOS WG meeting
    IETF-55, Yokohama, Japan, Thursday, July 18, 2002, 1:00 - 3:00

    Minutes by: Steve Waldbusser, Sharon Chisholm, and Glenn Waters
    Additional comment by: Bert Wijnen, AD for the OPS Area
    Minutes edited by: Glenn Waters

    Meeting chaired by: Glenn Waters

    Glenn Waters presented the current state of the working group with respect to
    each of the original goals and work items. He then gave a historical background
    of the WG.

    Glenn then posed the question of what should we do next. For example, is there
    interest in new SNMP protocol operations?

    Glenn plans to announce to the list that new proposals should be submitted by
    Sept 15 and if none are submitted then the WG should seriously consider shutting
    down due to lack of interest.

    Steve Waldbusser asked if the WG has any preconceived notions as to what
    constitutes a new SNMP protocol operation.

    Dave Perkins questioned whether the design should be performed in the WG or in
    designed teams.

    Bert Wijnen was unsure about what would be in-scope for this group but expressed
    reservations about going too far.

    There was general discussion about the whether we should be working on
    evolutionary change or revolutionary change. This discussion also touched on the
    operator requirements and whether it is possible to meet them.

    Bert said we may need an entirely new working group (may or may not be an
    XMLConf WG) to address the bigger picture items.

    Glenn suggested that on Sept 15 we'll look at the proposals and then decide if
    we will continue with the WG or shut it down. The proposals at that point in
    time can be straw man but need to have enough structure so that a good
    understanding of the direction can be determined.

    If the proposals seem to be outside the scope of the charter and the WG is
    interested in pursuing them, and then the charter can potentially be extended
    upon approved by Bert.

    Bert also requires that there be some discussion on the proposal(s) between
    September 15th and IETF-55 in Atlanta. Lack of interest will indicate that the
    WG should be shut down.

    It was decided that the David Partain OID suppression draft will be reissued for
    reference purposes.

    The bulk-data MIB module (draft-ietf-eos-snmp-bulkdata-01.txt) needs to have a
    reasonable level of support from the working group in order to proceed as a
    sanctioned working group item. The authors of that draft need to solicit the
    list to gain that support.

    Wes Hardaker presented his GORP proposal and a number of clarifying questions
    were asked as well as some helpful suggestions.

    Randy asked how RowPointers are encoded if the indexes are separated out.

    Wes asked if people were interested in his proposal and if he should continue
    working on it. A number of people thought that it was a worthy endeavor.

    Glenn Mansfield Keeni presented his proposal entitled: MO Aggregation:
    Programming MIBs

    Glenn Keeni will consult the mailing list to see if people think this proposal
    should go forward within the EOS working group.



    For clarification on the AD position of existing and potential work items of the
    EOS WG, the following text was supplied directly from the AD (Bert Wijnen):

    - The WG seem very inactive. Many todo items keep on the todo list and not much
    (if anything) happens on the mailing list. If that continues, then such work
    items that get no follow up and that get no discussion on the list will be
    removed from the charter.

    - The WG (when looking at protocol operations) can try to define some work items
    that would be complimentary to the SMIng work. It may mean some
    changes/clarifications to the WG charter, and I am willing to entertain the
    justification discussion and then defend it in the IESG

    - The WG should not try to address the "bigger picture" in the sense of the
    operator comments on "what to do for config management", "what to do with the
    xmlConfig discussions" and such. ADs want to see proper operator requirements in
    this space, and if needed, another WG may be formed. But the EOS WG is not there
    revolutionize NM. That would be a separate effort.

    - For the WG to continue to exist, the ADs want to see some action on the WG
    mailing list and contributions that get serious discussion and evaluation. The
    proposal to have docs submitted by Sep 15 and to see serious WG interest in the
    form of technical discussions is a pre-req in order to even consider
    continuation and/or extending the charter of this WG.

    Hope this helps to clarify the AD position.



    Slides

    Agenda
    MO Aggregation: Programming MIBs
    EOS WG Proposal