Current Meeting Report
2.2.1 AToM MIB (atommib)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 53rd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN USA. It
may now be out-of-date. Last Modified:
Faye Ly <email@example.com>
Nathan Kohn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Internet Area Director(s):
Thomas Narten <email@example.com>
Erik Nordmark <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Internet Area Advisor:
Erik Nordmark <email@example.com>
Keith McCloghrie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To Subscribe: email@example.com
Description of Working Group:
The AToM MIB Working Group is chartered to:
1. Complete the ATM Supplemental MIB, which defines additional sets of
ATM managed objects beyond those defined in RFC2515, to reflect
growing experience and industry requirements for management of ATM.
2. Complete the SONET Linear APS MIB, which defines additional sets of
SONET managed objects beyond those defined in RFC2558, to reflect
growing experience and industry requirements for management of
SONET Automatic Protection Switching.
3. Evaluate and define managed objects for optical channels and
4. Maintain and advance on the standards track the existing
specifications for ATM management (RFC2512-2515).
5. Maintain and advance on the standards track the existing
specification for SONET/SDH management (RFC2558).
6. Maintain and advance on the standards track other trunk-mib
specifications (i.e., for DS0 - DS3-E3, RFC2493-2496).
The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with the
Internet-standard Management framework.
Goals and Milestones:
|Jan 01||  || Revised OpticalMIB Internet-Draft and make available for discussion|
|Mar 01||  || Submit the SONET APS MIB to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Mar 01||  || Submit the ATM Supplemental to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Jun 01||  || Report on implementation experience on RFC 2493-2496|
|Jun 01||  || Report on implementation experience on RFC 2512-2515|
|Jun 01||  || Report on implementation experience on RFC 2558|
|Oct 01||  || Submit OpticalMIB Internet-Draft to IESG for standards track elevation|
|Oct 01||  || Submit any needed revisions of RFC2512-2515 to the IESG for consideration of standards track advancement as appropriate|
|Oct 01||  || Submit any needed revisions of RFC2493-2496 to the IESG for standards track advancement as appropriate|
|Oct 01||  || Submit any needed revisions of RFC2558 to the IESG for standards track advancement as appropriate|
Request For Comments:
|RFC1595||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
|RFC2493||PS||Textual Conventions for MIB Modules Using Performance
History Based on 15 Minute Intervals
|RFC2512||PS||Accounting Information for ATM Networks
|RFC2513||PS||Managed Objects for Controlling the Collection and
Storage of Accounting Information for Connection-Oriented Networks
|RFC2514||PS||Definitions of Textual Conventions and
OBJECT-IDENTITIES for ATM Management
|RFC2515||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM Management
|RFC2558||PS||Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
Current Meeting Report
AToM MIB WG (atommib)
IETF 53, Minneapolis
Tuesday, March 19 at 1545-1645
Chairs: Faye Ly <firstname.lastname@example.org> and Nathan Kohn <email@example.com>
Many thanks to Randy Presuhn <firstname.lastname@example.org> for these minutes
Comments should be sent to the list email@example.com
1. Introductions, Agenda bashing, Minutes Taker -
Nathan Kohn <firstname.lastname@example.org> 5 min
There were no major changes to the posted agenda.
2. Implementation reports (RFC 2493 - 2496). Faye/Orly 15 min
"Faye Ly" <email@example.com>
"Orly Nicklass" <Orly_n@Rad.co.il>
The ATM extensions document is nearly ready for WG last call.
Orly "Orly Nicklass" <Orly_n@Rad.co.il> gave a report on RFC 2495 implementations, noting specific objects and entire groups not supported. Some of these didn't make sense because they were tied to channelization, which the product in question didn't support.
The MIB is problematic for products which are able to change port configuration between different types. Implementors have kludged around it by using different communities and enterprise MIBs.
Orly took the action item to send an RFC 2496 implementation report to Faye.
There was dicussion of the use of textual conventions from RFC 2493 in other documents, but no conclusions.
3. SONET MIB (RFC 2558/RFC 2493) status - Mike Heard, 15 minutes
"C. M. Heard" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mike gave an update on the status of the Sonet and PerfHist TCs. The Sonet update included the addition of two enumerations, but all other changes were editorial.
The review of RFC 2558 issues focussed on comments that several vendors had had to implement enterprise MIBs to cope with the lack of configuration support in the standards-track MIB. Those present supported work on a separate standards-track document to cover configuration.
Discussion turned to the relationship between the APS and Sonet MIBs for SFSD conditions. These are problematic because they were not in the original Sonet work, and can't be added to the integer "bitmap" there, so they ended up in APS. This facility could also be of value to resilient packet rings. Discussion of this generalization is to be continued on the working group mailing list. One of the concerns is that SDH support issues, including failure definitions, configuration, and so on are also usually done in proprietary MIBs. Definitions for SDH background block and Sonet code violations will be needed.
It was noted that currently TL-1 is the primary mechanism used to configure these devices.
4. Optical Interface MIB - Status - Kam Lam, 5 minutes
"Kam Lam" <email@example.com>
Kam Lam gave an update on the Optical MIB, reviewing the changes between the -03 and -04 versions, as well as proposed additional changes for -05, which is planned for working group last call. Some object definitions will be changing. Cross-connect support will not be included, but might be appropriate for a supplement.
5. WIS joint design team - atommib issues 10 min
Time was running short. As the joint session with hubmib was immediately following and as there were no atommib only concerns this item rolled into the joint session.
6. Milestone & Charter review - Nathan 5 min
"Nathan Kohn" firstname.lastname@example.org
The working group charter's milestones are seriously in need of update. The chairs will update them to reflect current status.
7. Items for IETF #54 - 5 min
A show of hands indicated that a least a half dozen participants were interested in having a session at 54th Yokohama and would attend in person.
Optical Interface MIB
SONET-MIB and PerfHist-TC-MIB Status
Definitions of Managed Objects for the Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer