2.4.4 Entity MIB (entmib)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 58th IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-10-20

Chair(s):
Margaret Wasserman <margaret.wasserman@nokia.com>
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: entmib@ietf.org
To Subscribe: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
Archive: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/entmib/current/maillist.htm
Description of Working Group:
This working group is chartered to standardize a set of managed objects representing logical and physical entities and the relationships between them. Logical entities can occur when a single agent supports multiple instances of one MIB, such as RFCs 1493, 1525, or 1850 where each instance represents a single (logical) device/entity. Physical entities are the actual physical components on which the logical entities operate; typically, the physical components exist in a hierarchy.

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.

Goals and Milestones:
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
Internet-Drafts:
  • - draft-ietf-entmib-v3-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-entmib-state-01.txt
  • Request For Comments:
    RFCStatusTitle
    RFC2037 PS Entity MIB
    RFC2737 PS Entity MIB (Version 2)
    RFC3433 PS Entity Sensor Management Information Base

    Current Meeting Report

    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. 
    

    Slides

    Agenda
    TCIF (Telecommunications Industry Forum) request