Last Modified: 2003-10-20
The set of objects will be consistent with the SNMP framework and existing SNMP standards.
The scope of the defined managed objects should allow an NMS to interrogate a standard SNMP context and thereby discover what logical and physical entities exist, how to access the MIB information of each logical entity, and the relationships between the various entities. The MIB should support both a single agent or multiple agents in one physical entity.
The WG will also standardize a set of managed objects representing sensor entities. Sensor entities are physical entities that report a value based on external conditions, such as temperature sensors, power monitors, etc. The Sensor Entity MIB will augment the basic Entity MIB to allow an NMS to obtain the value reported by a sensor. This MIB will not contain internal support for alarms or thresholds, but should work with standard alarm and threshold MIBs, such as RMON-2.
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Entity MIB. | |
Done | Post updated Entity MIB Internet-Draft. | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for consideration as a Proposed Standard. | |
Done | Finalize scope of changes/augmentations to RFC 2037 | |
Done | Post updated/new Internet Drafts | |
Done | Reach agreement on changes/extensions to RFC 2037 | |
Done | Evaluate status of RFC 2037 and report to the IESG if it should be recycled at Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Done | Submit Internet Draft containing Entity MIB Extensions to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. | |
Done | Evaluate status of Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Recommend to the IESG if Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB | |
Done | Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard | |
Done | Re-cycle the updated Entity MIB at proposed standard, if necessary | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB | |
Done | Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues | |
Done | Publish state/status extensions as a WG I-D | |
Mar 03 | Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Mar 03 | Submit state/status extensions to the IESG for Proposed Standard | |
Mar 03 | Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
May 03 | Recommend to the IESG if the Sensor Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard | |
May 03 | Submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard | |
May 03 | Submit the Sensor Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard | |
Done | Recommend to the IESG if the Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Jun 03 | Re-charter or shut-down the WG |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC2037 | PS | Entity MIB |
RFC2737 | PS | Entity MIB (Version 2) |
RFC3433 | PS | Entity Sensor Management Information Base |
proposal.Entity MIB WG [entmib] Minutes Wednesday, November 12, 2003 IETF 58, Minneapolis, MN, USA ============================= CHAIR: Margaret Wasserman <margaret.wasserman@nokia.com> AGENDA: Entity MIB -- Andy Bierman (15 min) - Status of move to Draft Standard - How to handle future extensions? Entity State MIB -- David Perkins? (15 min) - Status and Open Issues TCIF Proposal -- Margaret for Kaj Tesink (10 min) - Discussion of potential new work SUMMARY: The Entity MIB is nearly ready for advancement to Draft Standard, but we do not have two implementations of the Alias Mapping Table. A decision was made to deprecate the Alias Mapping Table and advance the Entity MIB to DS. We also discussed how to handle future extensions to the Entity MIB and concluded that they should be handled as separate MIBs that augment the Entity MIB. The Entity State MIB was not updated between the Vienna and Minneapolis meetings, and status was unclear as the editor was not present. There did seem to be interest in the room to continue this work. We also had consensus within the room that the current MIB is too complex and should be simplified. However, Margaret and Bert agreed that we would remove this MIB from the Entity MIB charter if no progress is exhibited before the end of December. There was interest in the room regarding the TCIF proposal and some constructive suggestions were made to improve it. Margaret will ask Kaj Tesink to publish the proposal as an I-D. However, this group will not be permitted to take on a new work item unless/until it shows progress on the work items it already has (see above). ACTION ITEMS: Margaret Publish meeting minutes Andy Update Entity MIB to deprecate Alias Mapping Table Margaret Talk to Sharon about status of Entity State MIB Sharon Update Entity State MIB by end of December? (not present) Dave P. Send suggestion to list for generalized TCIF objects Margaret Ask Kaj Tesink to submit individual I-D for TCIF Margaret/Bert Determine status of Entity State MIB at end of December DISCUSSION NOTES: Entity MIB ========== Alias Mapping Table - not enough implementations reported. Do we deprecate now or wait for more reports? RFC2737 has been out for years, and it has been implemented, but we don't have reports. Will deprecate - Bert can add dire warning to IETF last call. Extensions should be done through AUGMENTS, etc. so the base document can advance. Entity State MIB ================ Status unknown. No new data about open issues. Discussion that this is a complex mib that is costly to implement. Do we have consensus on what we want contained in this mib? This started out adding one column and balooned. DanR - this got more complex than originally wanted it to be. It is not remaining true to the ITU standard. This was just supposed to be a uniform place to be to determine whether the LED should be red, yellow, or green. The Entity mib only gives you inventory; this was supposed to give you basic health of the device. Does anybody argue that we need the level of complexity that is in this mib? Sense of the room is that the MIB should be simplified, but key players are not represented. Take it to the list whether to eliminate, simplify, or complete this mib. The editing has not been as timely as needed. Margaret to check with Sharon about whether she still wants to edit thid document. Bert, Margaret - if we don't have an updated document with known issue resolutions documented by the end of December then the document may be removed from the charter. TCIF Proposal ============= TCIF proposal for new objects for T1M1.3 and other standards. Two needed objects, sparse augmentation, read-write so data can be plugged in after the manufacture. Sense of the room is to have a supplemental mib rather than modifying base document. Agreed it would be good to standardize mfr date. Discussion of CLIE code. CLIE code costs money, so object should be optional. Recommendation to add two columns - one to identify industry segment code type and the code. Entity MIB already tells you what it is, so is this duplication? The telco segment uses CLIE codes, Sense of the room - make a type/pair for this. Dave Perkins will send a couple objects to the list for consideration. Still under consideration whether this work should be undertaken by the ENTMIB WG (not in current charter). Will ask for individual submissions; Margaret will wordsmith the request to keep it properly constrained while allowing room for additional proposed objects. Bert - I don't like talking about new proposals when the existing proposals are not being completed. Margaret: Kaj can submit an individual draft, and if the Entmib finishes its work, then it may consider adopting. |