[Entmib] Updated Agenda

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

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

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