Re: [Entmib] Updated Agenda

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> NOTE:  The ipfc working group has been cc:ed because of the
>         relationship to their work.
> 

I am preparing an Entity MIB implementation report for cisco,
which will be done before the IETF.

I am somewhat perplexed by the agenda. The WG is chartered
to advance 2737, and we're going to spend all of 10 minutes
on deployment experience plus a 15 minute in-depth discussion
of any potential changes or additions to the MIB?

Please get a longer timeslot or move the FC MIB discussion to the IPFC meeting.

thanks,
Andy

> I have updated the agenda for the Entity MIB WG meeting to include
> several issues raised during the Fibre Channel MIB review.  The new
> agenda is attached, along with a reading list for meeting attendees.
> 
> Would anyone like to present on these (or other) topics?  If so,
> please let me know what you would like to present and approximately
> how long you will need.
> 
> IMPORTANT:
> To date we have NO implementation reports for RFC 2737.  We know
> that this MIB has been implemented by several groups.  If you are an
> implementor, PLEASE step forward and complete an implementation
> checklist before the IETF meeting.  WE CANNOT MOVE TO DRAFT STANDARD
> WITHOUT DOCUMENTED IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE!
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> Entity MIB WG (entmib)
> 
> Tuesday, August 07 at 1415-1515
> =================================
> 
> CHAIRS: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
> 
> AGENDA:
> Introduction and Agenda Bashing (5 min)
> 
> Implementation and Deployment Experience (10 min)
>    - Review current RFC 2737 implementation reports
>    - Review current RFC 2737 deployment experience
>    - Are any changes, additions or deletions indicated
>          by our implementation and deployment experience?
> 
> Issues Raised during Fibre Channel Review (30 min)
>    - Are any additional objects (or changes to existing
>      objects) needed to meet the needs of the FC MIB?
>    - Should we expand our charter to write a sensor MIB?
>        - Is there sufficient interest in doing this work
>          within the Entity MIB WG?
>        - Volunteers to write an internet draft?
> 
> Moving RFC 2737 to Draft Standard (15 min)
>    - Do we need any changes based on earlier discussions?
>    - Is further implementation or deployment experience
>      needed? If so, in what areas?
>    - Are we ready for WG last call?
> 
> READING LIST
> ============
> 
> RFC 2737:  Entity MIB (Version 2)
> 
> draft-ietf-entmib-impl-check-00.txt:  Entity MIB Implementation
>    Checklist
> 
> draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt: Fibre Channel Management
>    Framework Integration MIB
> 
> Entity MIB WG mail dated 28-Jun-01 entitled "[Entmib] Questions
>    regarding draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt" (included
>    below for the convenience)
> 
> -----------
> 
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:28:01 -0400
> To: [e-mail]
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Keith McCloghrie <[e-mail]>, Bert Wijnen <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [Entmib] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> As a WG, we need to respond to some questions that arose during a
> review of the Fibre Channel MIB:
> 
> draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt
> 
> This MIB implements some objects that may overlap functions of
> the Entity MIB. It also contains some objects that might be better
> represented in a generic form in a separate MIB (i.e. a Sensor MIB).
> So, there are basically two questions that we need to consider.
> 
> Keith McCloghrie wrote:
>  > > To take one example, they have a Sensor Table in their MIB, which is
>  > > obviously not FC-specific. What would you say to extending the
>  > > Entity MIB WG charter to include the definition of data on Sensors ?
> 
> Bert asked that I bring this to the Entity MIB mailing list...
> 
> Do we think that this would be a good idea? Are we willing
> to take on this work? Or do we think it would best be handled by
> a separate working group?
> 
> According to Keith, Cisco has a sensor MIB that we might be able to use
> as a model:
>  > > ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ftp/pub/mibs/v2/CISCO-ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB.my
> 
> We don't have Cisco's permission to use this material, but perhaps we
> could obtain their permission?
> 
> Also, there is an open issue of whether some of the objects in the FC
> MIB could be covered by the Entity MIB -- particularly those objects
> that represent multiple Fibre Channel cards in a device.
> 
> Keith McCloghrie writes:
>  > > > > But there's nothing unique to Fibre Channel in your statement, and
>  > > > > therefore you must NOT try to solve it in a Fibre Channel-specific MIB.
>  > > > > There are lots of SNMP-managed devices that have multiple blades or
>  > > > > are a series of boxes. See for example, the "usage examples" in
>  > > > > section 4 of the Entity MIB (RFC 2737).
> [...]
>  > > > > > > c. these objects are either already in the ENTITY MIB (RFC 2737) or
>  > > > > > > belong in an extension to the ENTITY MIB:
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumber
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumPorts
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumLinks
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumRevs
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitModuleId
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsTable
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsIndex
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsRevision
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsDescription
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortSerialNo
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortRevision
>  > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortVendor
> 
> However, Steven Blumenau responded:
>  > > > > > SMB> I did not believe they are covered.
> 
> Any opinions on whether we cover the functionality described for the FC MIB?
> Does RFC 2737 require any extensions to appropriately manage multiple FC cards
> in a device? If so, this is clearly something that we should discuss before
> moving to draft standard.
> 
> Steven, would you please provide details? What is missing from the Entity
> MIB that you need to manage FC cards in a chassis?
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

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