[Entmib] DRAFT Entity MIB Minutes for IETF 58

[[e-mail]]

Hi All,

I have attached the draft minutes from our meeting at IETF 58.
Please let me know if you notice any mistakes or omissions.

The minutes include action items for several of us.  Please follow
up on your action items, or let me know if you will not be able
to do so.

I would also like to confirm the consensus that we reached
within the room on the following points:

- We will deprecate the Alias Mapping Table so that the Entity
  MIB can advance to Draft Standard.

- Future extensions to the Entity MIB should be handled as
  separate MIBs that augment the Entity MIB.

- The Entity State MIB is currently too complex and should be
  simplified.

If any of you have thoughts that you'd like to share regarding
the above items, please feel free to discuss them on the list.

Thanks,
Margaret

---

Entity MIB WG [entmib] Minutes
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
IETF 58, Minneapolis, MN, USA
=============================

CHAIR:  

    Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>

AGENDA:

    Entity MIB -- Andy Bierman (15 min)
        - Status of move to Draft Standard
        - How to handle future extensions?

    Entity State MIB -- David Perkins? (15 min)
        - Status and Open Issues

    TCIF Proposal -- Margaret for Kaj Tesink (10 min)
        - Discussion of potential new work

SUMMARY:

The Entity MIB is nearly ready for advancement to Draft Standard,
but we do not have two implementations of the Alias Mapping Table.
A decision was made to deprecate the Alias Mapping Table and advance 
the Entity MIB to DS.

We also discussed how to handle future extensions to the Entity
MIB and concluded that they should be handled as separate MIBs
that augment the Entity MIB.

The Entity State MIB was not updated between the Vienna and
Minneapolis meetings, and status was unclear as the editor was
not present.  There did seem to be interest in the room
to continue this work.  We also had consensus within the room that
the current MIB is too complex and should be simplified.  However,
Margaret and Bert agreed that we would remove this MIB from the
Entity MIB charter if no progress is exhibited before the end of
December.

There was interest in the room regarding the TCIF proposal and
some constructive suggestions were made to improve it.  Margaret
will ask Kaj Tesink to publish the proposal as an I-D.  However,
this group will not be permitted to take on a new work item
unless/until it shows progress on the work items it already
has (see above).

ACTION ITEMS:

Margaret       Publish meeting minutes 
Andy           Update Entity MIB to deprecate Alias Mapping Table
Margaret       Talk to Sharon about status of Entity State MIB
Sharon         Update Entity State MIB by end of December?  (not present)
Dave P.        Send suggestion to list for generalized TCIF objects
Margaret       Ask Kaj Tesink to submit individual I-D for TCIF
Margaret/Bert  Determine status of Entity State MIB at end of December

DISCUSSION NOTES:

Entity MIB
==========

Alias Mapping Table - not enough implementations reported. Do we
deprecate now or wait for more reports? RFC2737 has been out for years,
and it has been implemented, but we don't have reports. Will deprecate -
Bert can add dire warning to IETF last call.

Extensions should be done through AUGMENTS, etc. so the base document
can advance. 

Entity State MIB
================

Status unknown. No new data about open issues.

Discussion that this is a complex mib that is costly to implement. Do
we have consensus on what we want contained in this mib? This started
out adding one column and balooned. DanR - this got more complex than
originally wanted it to be. It is not remaining true to the ITU
standard. This was just supposed to be a uniform place to be to
determine whether the LED should be red, yellow, or green. The Entity
mib only gives you inventory; this was supposed to give you basic
health of the device.

Does anybody argue that we need the level of complexity that is in this
mib? Sense of the room is that the MIB should be simplified, but key
players are not represented.  Take it to the list whether to eliminate,
simplify, or complete this mib. 

The editing has not been as timely as needed.  Margaret to check with
Sharon about whether she still wants to edit thid document.  Bert,
Margaret - if we don't have an updated document with known issue
resolutions documented by the end of December then the document may be
removed from the charter.

TCIF Proposal
=============

TCIF proposal for new objects for T1M1.3 and other standards. Two needed
objects, sparse augmentation, read-write so data can be plugged in after
the manufacture. Sense of the room is to have a supplemental mib rather
than modifying base document. Agreed it would be good to standardize mfr
date. 

Discussion of CLIE code. CLIE code costs money, so object should be
optional. Recommendation to add two columns - one to identify industry
segment code type and the code. Entity MIB already tells you what it is,
so is this duplication? The telco segment uses CLIE codes, 

Sense of the room - make a type/pair for this. Dave Perkins will send a
couple objects to the list for consideration. Still under consideration
whether this work should be undertaken by the ENTMIB WG (not in current
charter). Will ask for individual submissions; Margaret will wordsmith
the request to keep it properly constrained while allowing room for
additional proposed objects.

Bert - I don't like talking about new proposals when the existing
proposals are not being completed. 

Margaret: Kaj can submit an individual draft, and if the Entmib finishes
its work, then it may consider adopting. 




_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib