2.4.1 Operations & Management Open Area (opsarea)

Current Meeting Report

IETF 59 (Seoul) OPS Area Open Meeting - Minutes
Tuesday, March 2, 2004, 15:45-16:45

Slides at 

Minutes based on notes by David Harrington.

       5 minutes agenda bashing/admin/assign minute-takers
   1.  5 minutes New AD intro
   2. 10 minutes Division and Status of WGs. 
   3.  5 minutes Quick overview/status of OPS directorate and MIB 
   4. 15 minutes Other submitted or requested presentations (OPS related of 
   5. 20 minutes Open Mike and Q&A

1. Introduction to new coAD David Kessens.
   No questions.

2. Review of WGs and division between ADs.

2.1  WGs for which Bert Wijnen is primary AD:

  - Bridgemib - discussion of moving further MIB devevelopment in the 
802.1 space to IEEE 802.1, with MIB doctor review in IETF. This was also 
discussed during (informal) liaison discussion at the IEEE 802 meetings in 
Vancouver in January.  We still have a few bdirdgemib documents though that 
need to be finalized. We need volunteers.

  - Capwap - Initial doc submissions for this work reviewed. It did not 
look right for IETF to define functional blocks for access points. So we 
have been talking to IEEE 802.11 to get them to define the 
architecture. The capwap WG will gather a taxonomy and current 
practices, and possibly recommendations, as input to potential IEEE 
802.11 work. When IEEE is done, we can then work on management and 
provisioning protocols.

  - Disman - work is close to complete. Chair may drop some items 
because of lack of volunteers/interest.  All specific milestones have been  
completed, and there is no groundswell for new work. Chair recommends 
closing the WG.

  - Entmib - was close to done last time; working on their last set of 

  - Hubmib - has completed all current milestones. Have new work for EFM 
(Ethernet in the First Mile). Working close with IEEE 802.3.

  - Imss - IPv6 over fiber channel; in IESG hands; will go out for IETF 
last call soon. MIB work will start later this year.

  - Ipcdn - cable modem mib documents; aggressive dates are not being met.

  - Netconf - chairs believe they are closing issues, and protocol will be 
able to finish soon. Basically the protocol got a "haircut" as Elliot 
expressed it later in the Netconf WG meeting.
    Data modeling - people have met (informally) to start discussing this 
work. A separate mailing list has been set up for that, since it is not a WG 
charter item at this time.

  - Policy framework - last document has been through RFC AUTH48 review.  So 
RFC is out or should show up real soon now.  One individual document for 
LDAP Schema for PCIM extensions has been discussed on list; not a WG work 
item though. WG will be closed soon.

  - Rap - almost no work over last year; last document (cops over TLS) is 
going back and forth between AD/IESG and editors. Hopefully we can close 

  - Rmonminb - ongoing. Raqmon overdue, and serious issues were raised by 
the AVT chairs. Will need revisions in the next few months.

  - Snmpconf - one document left in IESG discussion. Once approved 
(hopefully soon) then WG will be closed.


  Randy presuhn: to what extent is it worth expending energy on 
advancement from PS to DS if we expect changes to process (newtrk WG)? 
  Bert: If docs for adavancement are close to completion, then complete 
them. If you still have to start the work and there is no urgent need to 
advance, then you might want to work on implementation reports, so that you 
can use that when/if new stds track levels get defined.

  Avi Leor: in Minneapolis, at radius extentions (RADEXT) BOF, the vast 
majority wanted a WG. Why isn't there a WG or a BOF at this meeting?
  Bert: Randy Bush was the AD at the BOF, so I didn't have data on hands 
raised. BOF Chairs and list reached consensus that existing radius should 
not be changed and that extensions (if any) should be compatible with 
existing RADIUS specs. Extensions need to be defined, but 
justification is required.  AAA/Diameter is meant to take over, so it will be 
hard to justify some of the work in RADEXT. BOF chairs are trying to line up 

  Avi: How does not having a BOF generate interest?
  Bert: work can start prior to a WG starting. Individual drafts have been 
submitted already. The drafts mmust be within the charter limits for 
backward compatibility, etc. We are talking with other 
organizations that need these extensions. Both BOF chairs and I agree it is 
not yet time.

  Joel Halpern: there is disagreement to what consistitutes backwards 
compatibility. Most vendors do not want Diameter; lots want radius 
  Bert: we don't just want to open a WG that could be a multi-year effort 
with extensions that don't belong in this space, so we need to be 

  Farid: I am part of GSM Association (GSMA), and we sent an official 
liaison to the chairs. About some of the drafts. 
  Bert: yes, BOF chairs copied it to me and I am verifying with GSMA that 
this is an official statement from GSMA and why it is needed. I need to 
verify this first that authors are in fact members of GSMA. I hope you 
agree that this is due process. 
  Farid: I know this 

  Avi: there is a bar BOF to discuss this. 

  Dan Romascanu: my impression is that there was a strong consensus that the 
work should be chartered. It looks like the people who were going to do the 
work didn't get organized very well. Everybody was surpoised when the WG 
didn't show up on the IETF agenda.
  Bert: BOF chairs have not submitted a charter to the ADs. 

  Avi: chairs didn't even tell us the chairs were not going to be 
present and we could have. 
  Bert: the fact that chairs are not at a specific meeting is not a 
blocking factor for having a meeting. But the BOF chairs did not feel a 
session would make sense.

  Randy Presuhn: while we're on the topic of BOF getting to WG. Another BOF 
was held about getting integrated security for SNMPv3. Help and inut is 
greatly appreciated.

  Dan Romascanu: IEEE WGs. I think the mode that worked 10 years ago isn't 
working any longer. I think we are without any plan, and bridgemib cannot be 
sustained in limbo. I think we need to go back to IEEE and tell them they 
need to take editing responsibility, with mib doctor review. This should 
happen with the bridgemib and hubmib.
  Bert: agreed. We are working on this. I support doing this for both 
bridgemib and hubmib.

2.2  WGs for which David Kessens is primary AD:

  - BMWG: no comment

  - DNSOP: grossly outdated charter; working to get a new charter. 
Agreement between chairs and Ads.

  - GROW: one co-chair (Vijay) stepped down; found Geoff Huston will 
co-chair WG. Working on charter, and have chair/ad agreement.

  - IPFIX: no comment

  - Multi6: could have huge implications for the internet. Working on 
charter, with lots of attention from IESG.  There will be 
discussions of architectural implications.

  - Psamp: doing good work, but will be delayed due to ipfix 

  - V6ops: very long list of work items. I'm trying to sort things out. 
Working with Bert on this WG.

  - RADEXT BOF: we will be following it closely. 

  - Ptomaine: one draft waiting for publication, then will be closed.


  Avi: bert said radius is dead. 
  Bert: we should not keep trying to extend radius. We should be working to 
move to the use of Diameter.

  Avi: that is not true. Radius is alive and well, and it is growing in 
acceptance. Unfortunately many new areas are adopting radius. My company 
sells RADIUS and Diameter, but nobody has requested Diameter; 
everybody requests RADIUS. It appears the IESG is trying to kill RADIUS and 
push Diameter, despite market pressures.
  Bert: my understanding is the biggest concern for radius is 
security. SNMPv1 is also insecure, and we won't support further 
development on SNMPv1.

  Avi: sometimes security is good enough security.

  Elliot lear: we have finite resources, and we can work on schlock or we 
can work on good engineering. As much as Diameter fixes the problems of 
RADIUS, we aren't we pushing it even more.

  Avi: we should do both. If IETF doesn't extend RADIUS then 
proprietary extensons will be done. Your Diameter will want the 
extensions, and the ietf won't be able to do them.

  Elliot: you missed my key point. We have limited resources and cannot 
pile hack on hack to keep radius alive, we won't do good 

  Avi: spending effort on Diameter, which nobody wants, is a wate of 
resources. The IETF has to be cognizant of market drivers as well as 

  Bert: feel free to discuss this on the RADEXT list. Further 
discussion here will not be fruitfull/worthwhile.

3. Directorates:

   OPS directorate: helps review documents that are on IESG agenda and 
specifically review for Operational aspects.

   IPv6 directorate: new to advise on IPv6 related issues. This 
directorate advises INT Area and OPS Area ADs.

   MIB doctors: review all MIB documents in the IETF, looking for good MIB 
syntax and structure and for reuse. Also sometimes help design MIB 
modules. MIB Doctors do not (always) know the technology being managed, 
however, so each specific WG needs to deterimine the attributes that are 
needed and that WG also needs to make sure that the MIB does represent the 
correct management information for the technology being modeled. MIB 
Doctors use guidelines to get consistent reviews. Editors and WG chairs 
should also review the document against those MIB review guidelines 
themselves. See 

4. Prepared presentations: none were submitted or requested.

5. Open Mike and Q&A: