Subject: [Disman] Seoul minutes of disman WG session

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:15:34 -0800

Hi -

Minutes for the disman WG session in Seoul

The Distributed Management (disman) Working group met for one hour at
the IETF meeting at the Lotte Hotel in Seoul on Tuesday, March 2, 2003.
Randy Presuhn chaired the session.  Shailaja Yadawad and Dan Romascanu
kindly provided the notes from which these minutes were assembled.

No changes were needed to the posted agenda.

The first major item was the review of the status of current work.
The Alarm Report Control MIB module was in the RFC editor queue.
The Alarm MIB was still in the IESG, and had not yet reached the RFC editor.
Sharon Chisholm, one of the document's editors, took the action item to contact
the area director, and to inform the WG chair if there were any remaining problems.

The Remote Operations MIB update was in working group last call, with only one
comment received.  The group needs feedback before forwarding it  to the IESG.
A quick poll of the room revealed that many there had not yet read the
update to the Remote Operations MIB, RFC 2925.  Consequently an
action item for the room was to read the update I-D.  The chair will send a
request for interoperability reports.

The Script MIB appears to be ready to advance to Draft Standard.  It is deployed
and used, but there was the question of finding editorial resources.  Juergen
Schoenwaelder, the primary editor, was not at the session.  The WG chair took
the action item to determine whether there was WG consensus to advance the
RFC "as is" since there were no known technical problems, and to request
interoperability reports.

The situation with the Schedule MIB was identical to that with the Script MIB, so
the WG chair took the action item to determine whether it, too, could be advanced
"as is".  The WG chair called for volunteers to provide editorial assistance.  (Subsequently,
 we heard from the current editor that he'd be able to do this.)

Mixed feedback was expressed about the expression MIB.  Some find the
MIB complicated to implement, and while other members shared how customers
are using this MIB. WG members to share implementation reports.  Currently only
one implementation is known, and there are questions about whether it is worth
investing additional effort in this.

Only one implementation of the event MIB was discussed in the session.  Since Cisco
is using it, Elliot Lear would take it as editor if there is another vendor that does it.
(Subsequently we learned from Wes Hardaker, who was not able to attend the
meeting, that the Event MIB is fairly heavily used by Net-SNMP users, though only
for local agent queries.)  WG members need to share implementation reports on
the Event MIB, RFC 2981.

The updates to the Notification Log MIB (RFC 3014) appear to be in
fairly good shape for advancement to Draft Standard, but due to workload
a new editor is needed to handle these mostly administrative details.

The next major item was the review of liaison activity, an item from the ITU on
the "structured" probable cause work.  Sharon Chisholm agreed to
forward the URL of the original liaison to the WG mailing list.  Bert Wijnen,
our Area Director, provided some helpful clarification on liaisons; the WG
chair should email responses directly, copying to Bert and Scott Bradner.

The next major item was Juergen Quittek's presentation on an alternative his
colleagues implemented to the expression MIB.  The discussion focused on
why their proposal would be easier to configure or lighter weight than the
Expression MIB.  In subsequent discussion, Juergen took an action
item to determine whether the problem could be solved using objects
from RMON groups.

The next presentation,  by Shailaja Yadawad, provided another look at how the
expression MIB problems might be addressed.  Entitled "Advanced History Collection",
it was inspired by RMON work.  The main question was how this MIB could
simplify configuration.  There was limited discussion, since the I-D had missed
the cutoff date.  It was agreed that additional discussion would be appropriate
on the mailing list after the draft became available.  Shailaja took the action
item to submit the draft.

The group then briefly discussed milestone updates for the charter.  The chair will
submit proposals to the list, and then, if agreed, to Bert.