2.4.12 Operations and Management Open Area (opsarea)

Current Meeting Report

OPS (Operations and Management) Area Open Meeting

During the Operations and Management Area Open Meeting, we thanked Harald for his work in our area during the last year. He has contributed a lot. We're happy to see that he will still be able to keep a close eye on our work in his position on the IAB.

At the same meeting we welcomed Randy Bush who will take a co-AD position in our Area. Randy is with Verio and brings in a lot of operational experience. During the 44th IETF meeting he has already shown that he will be able to contribute a lot to our area.

It is important that all participants in the WGs in the OPS area are aware of our OPS home page and mailing lists. Our home page: http://www.ops.ietf.org

It contains generic info for our area, a ptr to the list of I-Ds that are under AD or IESG review/consideration (contains status of those I-Ds as well). There is important info on MIBs as well.

There are 2 important mailing lists:

- this list is for general OPS area discussions. It also is a place to discuss potential new work in the OPS area

- this list is to discuss general MIB issues.
- An issue that will be discussed here is "how to support IPv6 in MIBs".

[Un]subscription is the normal means, <listname>-request@ops.ietf.org, or the majordomo-familiar can use majordomo@ops.ietf.org. The mailing lists are archived on ops.ietf.org.

For any email that you want to send to the ADs, pls address it to the AD who is primarily responsible for the WG that the topic relates to. But pls also copy the other AD, so that both ADs know what is going on.

WG reports


ADSLMIB met on Monday March 15, 1999 at the 44th IETF. A brief summary was given of the changes made in the current draft which has been submitted to the IESG for promotion to Proposed Standard. An update on ADSL Forum activities and requests from the Forum for new work in the working group was presented. The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing new work items which should be included in a new charter, as the work specified in the current charter is near completion.

agentx (did not meet in msp)

The AgentX docs are nearing "final draft" release to the list of the next rev of both the protocol (RFC2257) and the MIB. Technical progress in terms of resoling previous open issues with the docs has been substantial. Editorial progress was the big hang up as our RFC editor was given a number of successful international assignments by his employer and our original primary MIB editor had to take time off the have a baby! For a variety of reasons (incluing technical continuity and recognition of prior contributions), we opted to wait for this team to re-gel. Also, it has been helpful to AgentX to let SNMPv3 and some of the DISMAN stuff mature as a foundation.

We have everyone back on board now and the core design and editorial teams have committed to a quick turn-around of the docs and I anticipate release to the full mailing list for summary discussion within the next ten days or so.

Following that, and barring any newly identified major items, we will be seeking the ADs' advice on how to proceed re the docs (esp. whether RFC2257 can move to Draft or has to recycle at Proposed).

Implementations are proceeding, several with public discussion on various e-mail lists. A second bake-off has been *tentatively* considered for sometime in the Summer in New England (Compaq/Digital hosting).


The BMWG session was attended by over 40 people. Since the last IETF, RFC 1944 was re-issued by the RFC editor as 2544 to redress an incorrectly specified reserved address. <draft-ietf-bmwg-secperf-05> is in waiting for a IESG reviewer after surviving a BMWG last call. Progress was made toward the Call/Cell Benchmarking Terminology draft and will take a more ATM bent; work regarding frame relay was separated from that draft and editorial assistance requested. The first draft of the Multicast methodology document was issued and reviewed. Goals for next period:
- Progress <~bmwg secperf-05.txt> beyond IESG review.
- Engage the LAN Switch Benchmarking Methodology editors to make progress developing the draft.
- Further multicast methodology draft.
- Discuss, change and re-issue, Cell/Call draft; solicit editors for frame relay benchmarking terminology.


The bridgmib WG did not meet at the 44th IETF meeting.

The WG has gone through WG Last Call for the last I-D "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and Virtual LAN extensions"

The WG plans to submit revision -05 soon and then to ask the ADs to consider it for publication as a Proposed Standard.


The disman working group met at 13:00 on 1999-03-18 at the 44th IETF meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Rob Frye recorded the meeting minutes, which will be posted separately. There were 46 attendees. We briefly discussed our three drafts which are currently in working group last call, and spent most of our time working through issues with the remote operations draft, trying to focus on getting this document to last call. Although we discussed several possible additions or extensions to this work, our current path forward will be to complete this document without further embellishment.


The DNSOP BOF discussed a list of issues, to see wether there was interest in pursuing them in a working group. The following issues were found to be of interest for a working group: update of root server requirements doc, DNSSEC deployment experiences, multiple servers sharing the same IP address, update of FYI27 "Tools for DNS debugging", and to some extent performance and statistics issues and SOA timer recommendations. The BOF did not want to proceed with remote configuration protocol, standard format access lists (already done?), guidelines for large nameservers, topology distribution of servers, the Y2K problem, or IPv6 issues. The latter were said to be handled by the ngtrans wg. A task force of 3 persons is already progressing on producing a suggested charter to submit for WG application.


The Entity MIB WG did not meet at the 44th IETF meeting. A replacement for RFC 2037 is under IESG review and in the ADs hands to be considered for publication as Proposed Standard.


The GRIP working group met once this IETF meeting. During the meeting we reviewed the draft document for ISP consumers and the draft document for ISPs. Comments were solicited from attendees that will be integrated into the next version of the documents. New versions are due by April 15, 1999 and the working group will try to complete all documents by the Oslo IETF meeting.


The HUBMIB WG did not meet at the 44th IETF meeting. The WG has prepared 3 new I-Ds which are in WG Last Call and after WG approval will be submitted to the ADs for consideration to be published as Proposed Standard, with an informational document about ChipSets.


The MBONED working group followed the agenda with a few additions. Three documents are close to ready for WG last call: Anycast RP, MZAP, and SADP. The multicast debugging handbook will be revised and hopefully be ready by next IETF. In addition, the discussion of "anycast" RP has raised several questions about exactly what the term anycast means (as indicated by Harald's comments on several lists).

The minutes will contain details. I must say, however, that the behavior of Peter Lothberg, Dorian Kim, and Andrew Partan was unacceptable as it related to the treatment of Cheng-Yin Lee (leecy@nortelnetworks.com) during the discussion of anycast RP. It was totally unacceptable. As working group chair, I feel somewhat responsible for not stopping it. In any event, you saw my apology. I advise each of you to send your own.


The NAS Requirements WG met in Minneapolis. The two current drafts were discussed. There was spirited debate about the definition of a NAS that was used in the requirements draft, which amounted to discussion about the scope of the WG itself. Consensus was reached on how we could proceed with a working definition that was neither too limiting to be useful, nor too broad to let the WG do work. Tom Taylor of Megaco WG and John Strassner of Policy WG spoke on the work of their WGs and discussed how these related to NASREQ. The relationship of AAA and NASREQ was also discussed. Volunteers were conscripted to help write sections of the requirements and current practices documents. An interim meeting in May was suggested so that the WG can focus efforts on delivery of a complete requirements document in a timely manner.


NGtrans met for 4 1/2 hours with ~170 attendees. It was announced that the NGtrans current AD has approved a third co-chair for NGtrans, Alain Durand, and that Randy Bush will be the new AD for NGtrans. The 6to4 draft was discussed to determine the primary issues needing to be resolved, and to decide whether to continue to perfect it. It was decided to continue with work on 6to4 by publishing a new draft with more descriptive information and to publish the open issues for discussion on the list. Two short presentations were made describing new tools for the 6bone. One a VRML 3D network topology viewer, the other the new Tunnel Broker service. A Transition Roadmap document structure was discussed and refined, and a set of participants defined to carry the effort forward. A plan to harden the 6bone for better operational reliability was outlined and a group setup to recommend the steps for doing it. A restructuring of the 6bone pTLA address structure was proposed, which will be refined on the list for adoption. The 5 existing transition tools/mechanisms documents were reviewed to decide if they should be refined and/or developed further for standards processing (these are: SIIT, AIIH, DTI, NAT-PT and BISS). SIIT, NAT-PT and BIS will continue to be worked and evaluated as if they are destined for standards track, while the developers of AIIH and DTI have decided to merge their work, so a new draft will be produced soon. The new AIIH/DTI draft is expected to also be worked and evaluated for standards track.


The PTOPOMIB WG did not meet at the 44th IETF meeting. The WG is basically ready to hand the I-D off to the ADs for consideration to publish as a Proposed Standard. The last item to be resolved is the assignment of an ethernet address.


RADIUS WG did not meet in Minneapolis, but has been busy over email with WG last call on the updated drafts of RADIUS and RADIUS Accounting, and the RADIUS Extensions draft. I received several dozen comments on those drafts, and plan to update them next week and reissue the WG last call for 2 weeks, and after that send them in to the IESG for RADIUS to go to IETF Last Call for advancement to Draft Standard, and for RADIUS Accounting and RADIUS Extensions to be issued as informational. In support of the advancement to Draft Standard I'll have two memos, one documenting the deployment experience with interoperable independent implementations, and one offering guidance in allocating numbers for RADIUS.

The 2 RADIUS MIB drafts on the standards track have undergone IETF Last Call and have (as far as I understand) been approved for publishing as proposed standards. The 2 RADIUS Accounting MIB drafts have been approved for publishing as informational. The MIBs don't address IPv6, but there's an effort elsewhere in the IETF to IPv6ify MIBs, and when it publishes its conclusions we can do an update of our MIBs to conform. RADIUS in general doesn't discuss IPv6, because so far it hasn't been an issue for NAS vendors.

The 3 RADIUS Tunneling drafts have undergone WG last call and are having some security language added by the author at the Area Director's request; as soon as that work is complete and the L2TP drafts have RFC numbers assigned so that the Tunneling drafts can refer to those, the Tunneling drafts should be ready to go to IETF Last Call.

Once those 12 documents are out, the RADIUS WG is done, except to wake up 4 months and 10 months later to push various things along the standards track.


The RMONMIB WG met at IETF 44 to advance progress on several documents and discuss details of new charter work item proposals. The WG has recently completed almost all the work items from the previous charter. A few new issues were discussed and resolved for some of the drafts. The WG Editor needs to produce some final versions of the RMON-1 update, RMON-2 update, and HC-RMON MIBs, in order to complete the integration of HC-RMON and advancement of RFC 1513 and 1757. The WG also discussed the specific language of the revised new charter proposal, and an updated version of that proposal will be published soon.


The Roaming Operations working group met on Thursday at 3:30pm at the 44th IETF in Minneapolis. The working group reviewed its current charter to see if it fell within the scope of the working group to enable roaming protocols to be used to provide inter-domain wireless services (e.g. CDMA, GSM, etc). It appears that the charter, as it currently stands, does not need to be changed, however, some new work items may have to be added.

The meeting comprised of three presentations; the first being a presentation on the new XML phonebook internet-draft. Many concerns were raised at the meeting about the fact that the draft really needs to be cleaned up, and that it does not follow any XML standards. Given that XML standards are currently being developed, it was decided that the document would be cleaned up before the Oslo meeting, and that we could look into conformance with any XML standards at that time.

The second presentation was to describe the current work being done at the TIA's TR45.6 working group, which is defining the architecture of the 3rd generation (3G) CDMA cellular networks. The 3G network will be IP-based and will make use of Mobile IP and DIAMETER, and has needs for inter-provider roaming, which is very similar to the PPP dial-up scenario. We will send out a mail to the mailing list to decide whether the working group wants to add this new work item to the charter, but at the 43rd IETF rough concensus showed that there was significant interest in solving this problem.

The third presentation showed a new method of providing roaming services, using certificates. This method requires the use of EAP/TLS, and allows for encoding of authorization information within the certificate. This proposal needs to be discussed in the mailing list, and is not clear whether it will become a working group work item.


Curtis Villamizar presented the changes to draft-ietf-rps-auth and draft-ietf-rps-dist. After a WG last call next week on rps-auth and rps-dbsec-pgp, we will ask IESG to consider them for proposed standard. There is already an implementation of rps-auth.

There were major changes to rps-dist due to an ongoing implementation of this protocol. We plan to finish it up by the summer and go for a last call after the Oslo meeting.

David Kessens presented the transition status summary. All IRR sites are now ready to move to RPSL for production. Each registry will transition on their own pace instead of a set flag date.

Cengiz Alaettinoglu and Jerry Winters presented their RPSL implementations.


The SNMPv3 Working Group meet for one session on Friday morning at the 44th IETF. The actual agenda mostly followed the proposed agenda posted to the list and the IETF web site. The majority of the meeting time was spent discussing open issues on the Coexistence document that are primarily related to counter64. The Working Group reached what we believe to be a sound consensus on these issues. A further description of the consensus will be provided in the minutes. At this point, a new version of the ID is expected to be published by the end of April. The WG decided that RFC's 1905, 1906, and 1907 should be reviewed to identify what minor up-dates are needed so they are aligned with the core specifications that were recently approved for publication as Draft standards. The general objective is to be prepared to advance the complete set of specifications together to Full standard status. Volunteers for a design team for the review will identify their schedule by late April. The WG also concluded that a separate Applicability Statement document was not necessary and, therefore, would not be developed. As part of this discussion, we did conclude that there might be a need to provide a more concise description of what should actually be expected to be present when something is described as SNMPv3. The WG concluded that a document describing deployment might be useful if the proper editors can be located but there was no need for an implementation guidelines document. The Chair accepted a task to provide an updated Charter proposal to the ADs.


This WG did not meet. This WG will be closed down and the RFC 1628 will be re-classified as Informational RFC. The WG did not show an interest to do the work required to advance the document on the standards track.


This WG did not meet. Their document has been approved by the IESG and is in the RFC-Editor queue. As soon as the RFC appears, the WG will shut down. Their mailing list will remain open till end 1Q1999 so that any comments regarding Y2K issues can be reported in a central place.


None received.