Subject: Re: status update and atommib charter

From: Kaj Tesink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:59:55 -0400

here's another status report on this

At 05:04 PM 6/14/99 -0400, Kaj Tesink wrote:
>hi,
>
>many of our I-Ds have made it to RFC; the remaining ones are:
>- suppl atm mib        - we're doing a quality check on a revision;
>                         changes are minor; hopefully this can be
>                         wrapped up after this posting
>- atm test mib         - waiting for completion of the test mib which
>                         was quality reviewed by bert
>- atm 15 min perf mib  - will be dropped due to lack of interest
>
>since we're nearing completion of these specs we need to assess whether 
>subsequently the wg needs go go into dormant/maintenance mode or whether any 
>additional work should be undertaken. i have received over time several 
>suggestions for additional work. 
>i like to gauge the level of actual support for such work.
>
>1. supplemental sonet/sdh mib work, including
>   * support of APS/protection switching

Jeff Johnson has submitted a draft (thanks Jeff!)

>   * assess the issue whether Counter32 statistics would be needed
>     and/or the use of usrHistoryGroup style of statistics in RFC 2021
>   * full support of T1.231
>   there have been some off-line discussions on these topics and volunteers
>   for doing the editing work seem to be available.

some work has been done by Ken Chapman and others. Ken had a draft that
addressed some of this but not all. several other folks expressed interest.

>
>2. supplemental supplemental atm mib
>   * full support of UNI 4.0
>   this has been mentioned on several occasions but if we do this we'll need
>   a volunteer editor

i received a number of notes expressing interest in pursueing this but
no volunteer editor yet - any volunteers?

Joachim Buerkle raised the issue of supporting ATMF25.6 (speed 25.6 Mbps)
and ATMF51.2 (speed 51.2 Mbps), i.e., the phy layer

Umberto Bonollo raised the issue of the SNMP M4 MIB in the ATMF which
needs maintenance ( this has been done in the ATMF previously; it
is not clear that this will have to be continued in the IETF; any
opinions? )

>
>3. WDM mib
>   this has been suggested from time to time to me but if we do this we'll
need
>   a volunteer editor

i received a number of notes expressing interest in pursueing this but
no volunteer editor yet - any volunteers?

>4. maintenance of the current rfcs 2493, 2512-2515, 2558 rfcatmtest,
rfcsupplatmmib

a number of bugs/enhancements have already been identified

the simplest way to keep track of these is probably to publish new I-Ds

i will revise the charter as per the above. volunteer editors are needed in
some cases. pl let me know if you wanna volunteer.

kaj

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Kaj Tesink
Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bellcore)
Email  [email-masked]
Tel    732.758.5254
Fax    732.758.2269
Postal 331 Newman Springs Rd
       Red Bank, NJ 07701
       USA

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/