NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide, Australia. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 03-Feb-00
Chair(s):
Andy Malis <amalis@lucent.com>
Internet Area Director(s):
Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Internet Area Advisor:
Erik Nordmark <nordmark@eng.sun.com>
Technical Advisor(s):
David Perkins <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:frnetmib@sunroof.eng.sun.com
To Subscribe: majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
In Body: subscribe frnetmib
Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/frnetmib/
Description of Working Group:
The Frame Relay Service MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of managed objects which will be useful for customer network management of a provider's Frame Relay Service. The working group will consider existing definitions, including the Frame Relay Forum's work in this area. The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with the SNMP framework.
The working group will coordinate with both the Frame Relay Forum, the ATM MIB Working Group, and other relevant groups.
The working group is chartered to complete four tasks:
a) consider revisions to the FRS MIB (currently published as a Proposed Standard in RFC 1604) in light of implementation experience, changes to the interface MIBs (e.g. IF-MIB, DS1-MIB, DS3-MIB, FR-DTE-MIB, creation of the DS0 and DS0 Bundle MIB modules), and evolution of the relevant non-IETF standards,
b) prepare a Recommendation to the Area Director as to the appropriate disposition of the (updated) FRS MIB, i.e. that it be advanced to Draft Standard status or that it cycle at Proposed Status,
c) develop a set of managed objects to provide the instrumentation required to manage switched-virtual circuits in a frame-relay environment.
d) develop a set of managed objects to provide the instrumentation required to manage connections that terminate on a mixture of ATM and Frame Relay interfaces, i.e. interworked connections. These objects will be the minimum necessary to provide the ability to monitor and control interworked connections and shall use existing definitions (e.g. IF-MIB, FRS-MIB, ATM-MIB, etc.) to instrument the interfaces and the "native" parts of the connections.
e) develop a set of managed object for the management of Frame Relay Service Level Definitions.
f) consider other closely related future work items.
In all cases, the working group will keep the Frame Relay and ATM Forums and the ATM MIB WG informed of its progress and will actively solicit their input.
All output of the group will be consistent with the existing SNMPv2c framework and standards, including the SNMPv2c Structure of Management Information (SMI).
Goals and Milestones:
Done |
|
Post the initial Internet-Draft for discussion. |
Done |
|
Submit the Frame Relay Service MIB to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Solicit implementation experience for the IWF and SVC cases and 'requirements' for IWF and SVC cases/ |
Done |
|
Post summary of SVC requirements, issues, and a basic proposal for the structure of the SVC instrumentation. |
Done |
|
Post first draft of RFC1604 update as an Intenet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Post IWF MIB document and SVC MIB document as Internet-Drafts. |
Done |
|
Post revised version of RFC1604 update Internet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Meet at Montreal IETF to review RFC1604 update document and develop recommendation on advancement. |
Done |
|
Submit final version of RFC1604 Internet-Draft to Area Director, requesting Directorate review. |
Done |
|
Post revisions of IWF MIB and SVC MIB as Internet-Drafts. |
Done |
|
WG Last Call for SVC MIB. |
Done |
|
Submit SVC MIB Internet-Drafts to Area Director for referral to Directorate. |
Sep 99 |
|
WG last call on IWF MIB, submit Internet Draft to IESG for publication. |
Sep 99 |
|
Post revised version of SLD draft. |
Dec 99 |
|
WG last call on SLD MIB, submit Internet Draft to IESG for publication. |
Internet-Drafts:
· Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
· Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC1604 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service |
Frame Relay Service MIB WG (frnetmib)
Tuesday, March 28, 1300-1515
============================
Chair: Andy Malis <amalis@lucent.com>
Minutes by Andy Malis
1. Administrivia, current documents status
Andy presented the agenda and the current status of the documents. The only active WG document that was not already on the agenda was draft-ietf-frnetmib-atmiwf-05.txt, which is waiting for the Frame Relay Service MIB to complete due to cross-references - otherwise, it is ready to be published as an RFC.
2. Rob Steinberger and Orly Nicklass,
- draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-service-00.txt, Definitions of Managed
- Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions
See:
- http://www.frforum.com/5000/Approved/FRF.13/frf13.pdf
- http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-service-00.txt
Rob presented the open issues from the last meeting. To address them, the document was renamed, he detailed the delay data from the sample table, got an IANA experimental ID (104), and added a capabilities object to identify which objects can be written. He also cleaned up some typos, fixed a problem in the nroff file, and some other minor changes, such as a revisions section to the MODULE, and added working group info to the contact list.
The current open issues are:
- typo in section 2.7.1: "dive" should be "divide"
- SmplIndex should be SmplControlIndex for consistent naming
- some objects have Data in their name twice to match the terminology in FRF.13. We could change it, but it wouldn't match FRF.13. We decided to not change it.
Rob asked for WG last call for Proposed Standard. Ken Rehbehn felt that it should be experimental rather than PS, due to other ongoing work on service tracking MIBs. He said that it would be premature at this time to make it a Proposed Standard, until the IETF has a more mature service tracking framework. Thomas Narten said that it could be experimental for now, and it wouldn't be a big deal to change it to PS later on down the line. Peter Bodeit said that having it PS would help network operators, since it would be easier to get the functionality from vendors. It was also noted that there is currently no WG home for the service tracking MIB work. The WG consensus was to go for PS and revisit the issue when it comes time to advance the MIB to Draft Standard, to see if it needs updating based upon activities elsewhere in the IETF. Thomas gave advice on how to get an assignment in the MIB II branch (you make it clear in the MIB text that the assignment is required).
3. Prayson Pate, Bob Lynch, and Ken Rehbehn,
- draft-ietf-frnetmib-mfrmib-01.txt,
- Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function
See:
- http://www.frforum.com/5000/Approved/FRF.16/frf16.pdf
- http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-mfrmib-00.txt
Version -01, the current version, was sent out on 3/17. The authors would like to go to next week's FRF meeting, collect any comments there, and then ask for last call. Changes from last time were:
- minor formatting fixes
- added ranges, REFERENCE, and UNITs where needed
- returned a deleted object, the number of links in a bundle
- clarified dependencies of the creation operation.
There is no more functionality that should be added. It's had about three spins for review.
Orly had some comments and questions on the MIB that she will send to the email list.
It will go for last call following the FRF meeting and the resolution of Orly's comments.
4. Ken Rehbehn, recent updates to draft-ietf-frnetmib-frs-mib-10.txt,
- Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service
See:
- http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-frs-mib-10.txt
This MIB completed WG last call on 11/30, the IESG last call issued 12/8, Erik Nordmark's comments came on 12/30, Dave Perkin's comments came on 1/5, and a new revision was issued on 3/8.
The minor changes from -09 were: many editorial modifications, completeness of REFERENCES, size ranges, move comments into DESCRIPTION clauses, and combined the lists of changes since RFC 1604 into a single complete list.
More significant changes: removed the "stack" picture, which was replaced by more explicit text; removed the frLportVCSigPointerAdmin object; changed the notification OBJECT IDENTIFIER to avoid conflict with the obsolete trap; and reorganized the compliance groups.
Ken gave a comprehensive description of the changes in the compliance groups.
Andy discussed the fact that since new requirements have been added to the compliance groups, the FR service MIB will most probably have to recycled at Proposed rather than advanced to Draft. This is mostly a result of the new frPVCConnectStatusNotif NOTIFICATION.
There is one last issue that needs resolution: frLportFragSize Integer32 (0..8184) will be changed to have a maximum size of 4096 to make it consistent with other MIBs.
Ken's question: should he spin a new draft with these changes, and should there be second WG last call? We felt a second WG last call was not necessary. Ken is going to spin a version -11 to have a clean text for the IESG and the RFC Editor.
5. Open discussion
With no further discussion, we adjourned.
Agenda
Definitions
"draft-ieft-frnetmib-frs-mib-10"
"draft-ietf-frnetmib-mfrmib-01"