Current Meeting Report
2.4.6 Evolution of SNMP (eos)
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
http://www.snmp.com/eos -- Additional EOS Web Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 54th IETF Meeting in Yokohama, Japan. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modifield: 06/24/2002
Glenn Waters <email@example.com>
Dale Francisco <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <email@example.com>
Bert Wijnen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Bert Wijnen <email@example.com>
General Discussion: firstname.lastname@example.org
To Subscribe: email@example.com
In Body: (un)subscribe
Description of Working Group:
A small number of enhancements to the SNMP protocol would provide a
substantial improvement to the protocol in terms of utility and
efficiency. The enhancements must fall within the existing SNMP
architecture as defined in RFC 2571. The intent of the working group is
to focus on enhancements that may be easily defined and implemented
which should then promote rapid acceptance and deployment. New protocol
operations are within the realm of acceptable enhancements that may be
The initial work items include:
- A standards-track document defining the mechanism by which the
capabilities of a SNMP entity may be determined. This document should
also define the interoperability requirements of the SNMP protocol
when extensions are present and when they are absent;
- A standards-track document defining a mechanism for efficient
retrieval, creation, and deletion of rows in tables;
- A standards-track document defining a mechanism used to delete an
entire subtree of managed object instances. This could, for example,
be used to remove all information related to a particular username in
the SNMP administrative framework;
- A standards-track document defining a mechanism to provide for
compression of object identifiers to remove as much redundant
information as possible in the payload of the SNMP message; and,
- A standards-track document defining a mechanism for bulk transfer of
Some of the documents may be combined if the working group so decides.
No additional work items may be taken on by the working group until
initial set of work is close to completion. Additional work will have
be approved by the IESG and the IAB.
Goals and Milestones:
|FEB 01|| ||Working group chartered |
|FEB 01|| ||First revisions of the documents |
|APR 01|| ||Second revisions of the documents |
|JUN 01|| ||Third revisions of the documents |
|SEP 01|| ||Last set of revisions of all documents |
|SEP 01|| ||WG Last Call for all documents and submit then to AD for
consideration as Proposed Standard |
|OCT 01|| ||Shutdown or re-charter |
No Request For Comments
Current Meeting Report
Final minutes of the EOS WG meeting
IETF-55, Yokohama, Japan, Thursday, July 18, 2002, 1:00 - 3:00
Minutes by: Steve Waldbusser, Sharon Chisholm, and Glenn Waters
Additional comment by: Bert Wijnen, AD for the OPS Area
Minutes edited by: Glenn Waters
Meeting chaired by: Glenn Waters
Glenn Waters presented the current state of the working group with respect to
each of the original goals and work items. He then gave a historical background
of the WG.
Glenn then posed the question of what should we do next. For example, is there
interest in new SNMP protocol operations?
Glenn plans to announce to the list that new proposals should be submitted by
Sept 15 and if none are submitted then the WG should seriously consider shutting
down due to lack of interest.
Steve Waldbusser asked if the WG has any preconceived notions as to what
constitutes a new SNMP protocol operation.
Dave Perkins questioned whether the design should be performed in the WG or in
Bert Wijnen was unsure about what would be in-scope for this group but expressed
reservations about going too far.
There was general discussion about the whether we should be working on
evolutionary change or revolutionary change. This discussion also touched on the
operator requirements and whether it is possible to meet them.
Bert said we may need an entirely new working group (may or may not be an
XMLConf WG) to address the bigger picture items.
Glenn suggested that on Sept 15 we'll look at the proposals and then decide if
we will continue with the WG or shut it down. The proposals at that point in
time can be straw man but need to have enough structure so that a good
understanding of the direction can be determined.
If the proposals seem to be outside the scope of the charter and the WG is
interested in pursuing them, and then the charter can potentially be extended
upon approved by Bert.
Bert also requires that there be some discussion on the proposal(s) between
September 15th and IETF-55 in Atlanta. Lack of interest will indicate that the
WG should be shut down.
It was decided that the David Partain OID suppression draft will be reissued for
The bulk-data MIB module (draft-ietf-eos-snmp-bulkdata-01.txt) needs to have a
reasonable level of support from the working group in order to proceed as a
sanctioned working group item. The authors of that draft need to solicit the
list to gain that support.
Wes Hardaker presented his GORP proposal and a number of clarifying questions
were asked as well as some helpful suggestions.
Randy asked how RowPointers are encoded if the indexes are separated out.
Wes asked if people were interested in his proposal and if he should continue
working on it. A number of people thought that it was a worthy endeavor.
Glenn Mansfield Keeni presented his proposal entitled: MO Aggregation:
Glenn Keeni will consult the mailing list to see if people think this proposal
should go forward within the EOS working group.
For clarification on the AD position of existing and potential work items of the
EOS WG, the following text was supplied directly from the AD (Bert Wijnen):
- The WG seem very inactive. Many todo items keep on the todo list and not much
(if anything) happens on the mailing list. If that continues, then such work
items that get no follow up and that get no discussion on the list will be
removed from the charter.
- The WG (when looking at protocol operations) can try to define some work items
that would be complimentary to the SMIng work. It may mean some
changes/clarifications to the WG charter, and I am willing to entertain the
justification discussion and then defend it in the IESG
- The WG should not try to address the "bigger picture" in the sense of the
operator comments on "what to do for config management", "what to do with the
xmlConfig discussions" and such. ADs want to see proper operator requirements in
this space, and if needed, another WG may be formed. But the EOS WG is not there
revolutionize NM. That would be a separate effort.
- For the WG to continue to exist, the ADs want to see some action on the WG
mailing list and contributions that get serious discussion and evaluation. The
proposal to have docs submitted by Sep 15 and to see serious WG interest in the
form of technical discussions is a pre-req in order to even consider
continuation and/or extending the charter of this WG.
Hope this helps to clarify the AD position.
MO Aggregation: Programming MIBs
EOS WG Proposal