Re: [Disman] Seoul minutes of disman WG session
"David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com> Fri, 02 April 2004 12:52 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07435 for <disman-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 07:52:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9L8j-0006qG-Pz; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:39:05 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B9HRu-0004pS-VV for disman@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:42:39 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10946 for <disman@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 00:42:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9HRs-0007J6-00 for disman@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:42:36 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B9HQu-0007DJ-00 for disman@ietf.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:41:36 -0500
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net ([209.128.82.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B9HQ0-00076M-00; Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:40:40 -0500
Received: from NB5.dsperkins.com (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i325eZM01259; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 21:40:35 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040401213855.02344df8@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: dperkins@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, proceedings@ietf.org
From: "David T. Perkins" <dperkins@dsperkins.com>
Subject: Re: [Disman] Seoul minutes of disman WG session
Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" <disman@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <019701c4183f$3c26d280$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Sender: disman-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/disman/>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 21:40:13 -0800
HI, The notification log MIB last I remember had no interoperable implementations. Who has implemented it? At 03:15 PM 4/1/2004 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote: >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. Regards, /david t. perkins
- [Disman] Seoul minutes of disman WG session Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Disman] Seoul minutes of disman WG session David T. Perkins