Subject: Disman agenda (preliminary)

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:48:30 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

Comments and any further additions would be appreciated.
Note that some people who haven't requested speaking time
I've "volunteered" to handle the discussion of issues on
specific documents.

Andy, Anni, Dan, Dave, Juergen, Sharon: check the preliminary
time guestimates.  Let me know if you'll need more (or less)
time to discuss the issues from your documents.

Others: if you would like a time allocation to present in-depth
problems and solutions (NOT tutorial presentations!), please
let me know.  If you hace submitted an internet-draft that you
believe should be on the reading list, please let me know.

If additional issues arise before the meeting, please bring
them to this mailing list so that meeting attendees can
prepare.  (If your posting to the mailing list bounces,
please contact me immediately at [email-masked]).

                     Proposed
         Agenda for the Disman working group
 50th IETF meeting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
         Monday, March 19 from 13:00 to 15:00
         Tusday, March 20 from 17:00 to 18:00

0. Reading List: (use more recent versions if available)
   Alarms:
     <draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-00.txt>
     <draft-ietf-disman-itualarm-mib-00.txt>
     <draft-huynh-disman-conditionmib-00.txt>
     <draft-lam-disman-arcmib-00.txt>
     <draft-ietf-disman-snmp-alarm-mib-00.txt>
     RFC 3014 (notification log MIB)
   Scheduling:
     <draft-ietf-disman-schedule-mib-v2-03.txt>
   Scripting:
     <draft-ietf-disman-script-mib-v2-02.txt>
     <draft-bierman-disman-see-00.txt>
     <draft-schoenw-rfc-2593-update-00.txt>

1. Administrative matters
   1.1 introductions
   1.2 selection of minute-taker
       PLEASE read http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html
   1.3 circulation of sign-up sheet
   1.4 Review of Agenda
   1.5 Allocation of time

2. Status of Current work
   2.1 Script MIB: updates to RFC 2592 (Proposed Standard)
       <draft-ietf-disman-script-mib-v2-02.txt>
   2.2 Schedule MIB: updates to RFC 2591 (Proposed Standard)
       <draft-ietf-disman-schedule-mib-v2-03.txt>
   2.3 Expression MIB: RFC 2982 (Proposed Standard)
   2.4 Remote Operations MIB: RFC 2925 (Proposed Standard)
   2.5 Event MIB: RFC 2981 (Proposed Standard)
   2.6 Alarm MIB: currently two I-Ds,
         <draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-00.txt>
         <draft-ietf-disman-itualarm-mib-00.txt>
       and several contributions:
         <draft-huynh-disman-conditionmib-00.txt>
         <draft-ietf-disman-snmp-alarm-mib-00.txt>
         <draft-lam-disman-arcmib-00.txt>
   2.7 Notification/Log MIB: RFC 3014 (Proposed Standard)

3. Other relevant work
   3.1 syslog, idwg, ???
   3.2 RmonMib
   3.3 SnmpConf
   3.4 Eos

4. Technical Discussions
   Please see  http://www.ietf.org/instructions/slides.html
   and contact [email-masked] if you need time to
   for focused discussion of specific drafts or issues.

   4.1 Alarm management
       4.1.1 current WG I-Ds (Chisholm & Romascanu, 20 minutes)
                <draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-00.txt>
                <draft-ietf-disman-itualarm-mib-00.txt>
       4.1.2 SNMP Alarms and MIB Module (Perkins, 10 minutes)
                <draft-ietf-disman-snmp-alarm-mib-00.txt>
       4.1.3 CONDITION MIB (Huynh, 10 minutes)
                <draft-huynh-disman-conditionmib-00.txt>
       4.1.4 Alarm Reporting Control MIB in-depth (Huynh & Lam, 10 minutes)
                <draft-lam-disman-arcmib-00.txt>
       4.1.5 How many documents?  Slice & dice. (30 minutes)

    4.2 Do we re-open the notification log MIB (RFC 3014)? (15 minutes)

    4.3 Extensions to the Script work
        4.3.1 Discussion of issues raised by (Bierman, 30 minutes)
              <draft-bierman-disman-see-00.txt>
        4.3.2 Does the WG have any feelings about (Schoenwaelder, 5 minutes)
              <draft-schoenw-rfc-2593-update-00.txt>?

5. Charter updates.
   Please see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/disman-charter.html
   5.1 completed items
   5.2 changes to target dates
   5.3 Possible additions to charter
       5.3.1 "Script MIB Extensibility" (RFC 2593 update)?
       5.3.2 Anything from <draft-bierman-disman-see-00.txt>?

6. Wrap-up
   6.1 review of action items
   6.2 reminders to minute-takers and presenters
       PLEASE read http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html
       and http://www.ietf.org/instructions/slides.html, respectively.
   6.3 retrieval of sign-up sheet

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]
 Voice: +1 408 546-1006  BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 Fax:   +1 408 965-0359  2141 North First Street
 http://www.bmc.com/     San José, California 95131  USA
 -------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 -------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:31:08 -0500

hi Randy,

We will want to discuss *-01 versions of the
Alarm MIB and the ITU Alarm MIB.

I was thinking it would be useful to review the
high level requirements for the alarm MIBs and for alarms
before or after getting into the specific implementations.
I can summarize the lists which we've started on the
mailing list into some slides.  This may require some
additional time though, since it will likely generate lots of
discussion.

thanks,

Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:49 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Disman agenda (preliminary)

Hi -

                     Proposed

3. Other relevant work
   3.1 syslog, idwg, ???
   3.2 RmonMib
   3.3 SnmpConf
   3.4 Eos

4. Technical Discussions

   4.1 Alarm management

5. Charter updates.

6. Wrap-up

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:55:34 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Disman agenda (preliminary)
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:31:08 -0500
...
> Alarm MIB and the ITU Alarm MIB.

We'll go with the most recent versions available from the
internet-drafts repositories at the time of the meeting.
The -01 ones haven't appeared yet.   I'll strengthen the
note on the reading list.

> before or after getting into the specific implementations.

I hope that we can reach rough agreement on requirements on
the mailing list; meeting time should focus on the ones that
we have trouble pinning down by email.

> additional time though, since it will likely generate lots of
...

Please condense those requirements lists into the form of
a proposed "Requirements" section for the document, and
post that text to this mailing list.  (This has already
been happening to a certain extent, and I think it's time
to nail it down.)

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:46:56 +0200

> been happening to a certain extent, and I think it's time
	[Dan]  Yes, I think that we need to have this discussion, and with
the experience  of three more months and some extra-gray hair I think that
we should have done it from the beginning. The problem we are facing is to
quite a large extent we did not discuss enough the requirements, and we are
faced with a 'problem space' (to use the terms from another WG) somehow
different and definitely larger than the one that was originally
anticipated. I am waiting for the list from Sharon, but I am sure it will
include issues like the common generic alarms space, and alarm conditions
which were not anticipated to become from the beginning the big stumbling
blocks they tended to become.

	As an agenda proposal, I would take half of the time from the MIB
discussions and dedicate it to the requirements, and do it before or at the
beginning of section 4. I think we should not do MIB presentations, as all
MIBs are available, but only open issues Q&A and this after the requirements
discussion.

	I also think that an editors and contributors discussion before the
meeting could help in clarifying positions and solving  part of the issues
before bringing them to the floor.

	Regards,

	Dan

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:44:20 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:46:56 +0200
...
> beginning of section 4.

I like this idea, and have adjusted the agenda time allocations
accordingly.

>                         I think we should not do MIB presentations, as all

Agreed; the MIB "presentations" should be in-depth discussion
of the strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs in each of
the aproaches, with a view toward how we can bring all this
together in a coherent fashion.

Some chats I've had off-line with Mike Ayers and Dave Perkins
suggest that if there is "presentation" material in the usual
sense, it would be of folks' architectural understanding of
the data flow (yes, this is close to implementation, but this
is the iEtf) and the roles played by subagents, notification
filters and targets (RFC 2573), logs (RFC 3014), VACM, and
the MIBs in these proposals.

...

I'll be arriving in Minneapolis on Saturday, so I'll be
available for informal pub & hallway discussions.  Of course,
such conversations are open to all that are interested.

If editors / contributors are able to reach conclusions
about recommending approach X over approach Y, I would like
them to make note of their reasoning, so that they can support
their choices when we get to the specifics in the WG session
or the mailing list.