[Forwarded: WG ACTION: Interfaces MIB (ifmib)]

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

in case you are not on the ietf announcement list.
==========================================================================

To: IETF-Announce:;@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: WG ACTION: Interfaces MIB (ifmib)
Date: Thu, 13 May 93 14:07:51 -0400
From: Greg Vaudreuil <[e-mail]>

A new Working Group has been formed in the Network Management Area of
the IETF.  For more information, please contact the working group
chairman or the area director.

Greg Vaudreuil
IESG Secretary



Interfaces MIB (ifmib)
----------------------
 
 Charter 
 
 Chair(s):
     Ted Brunner  <[e-mail]>
 
 Network Management Area Director(s) 
     Marshall Rose  <[e-mail]>
 
 Mailing lists: 
     General Discussion:[e-mail]
     To Subscribe:      [e-mail]
     Archive:           
 
Description of Working Group:
     The Interfaces MIB working group is chartered to accomplish two tasks.

     First, to develop a collection of managed objects which model the
     relation between different entities in the datalink and physical
     layers.  The working group will explore different modeling
     approaches in order to develop a collection of objects which is
     both correct in the modeling sense and has an acceptable impact (if
     any) on the interfaces table from MIB-II and all media MIB modules
     on the standards track or under development by a working group.
     The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with
     the SNMP framework.

     Second, to prepare a recommendation to the IESG evaluating RFCs
     1229 (the if-extensions MIB), 1231 (the token-ring MIB), 1304 (the
     SMDS MIB), and 1398 (the ether-like MIB) with respect to the
     standards track.

     The recommendation will document implementation, interoperability,
     and deployment experience.  If this experiences suggests that
     changes should be made to the documents, new drafts may be
     prepared.

     For RFCs 1229, 1231, and 1304, the recommendation will report one
     of four outcomes for each RFC: that the RFC should be advanced
     from proposed to draft status, without changes (if no problems are
     found); that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace
     the RFC, and be designated a draft standard (if only minor changes
     are made); that a draft prepared by the working group, should
     replace the RFC, and be designated a proposed standard (if major
     changes or feature enhancements are made); or, that the RFC should
     be designated as historic (if this technology is problematic).

     For RFC 1398, the recommendation will report one of five outcomes:
     that the RFC should be advanced from draft to full status, without
     changes (if no problems are found); that a draft prepared by the
     working group, should replace the RFC, and be designated a full
     standard (if only editorial changes are made); that a draft
     prepared by the working group, should replace the RFCs, and be
     designated a draft standard (if only minor changes are made); that
     a draft prepared by the working group, should replace the RFC, and
     be designated a proposed standard (if major changes or feature
     enhancements are made); or, that the RFC should be designated as
     historic (if this technology is problematic).

 
 Goals and Milestones: 
 
   Jul 93 Post the if layering document as an Internet Draft.                  

   Sep 93 Submit the if layering document to the IESG for consideration as a 
          Proposed Standard.                                                   

   Sep 93 Issue a call for implementation and operations experience with RFCs 
          1229, 1231, 1304, and 1398.                                          

   Oct 93 Evaluate experience and if necessary post revised MIBs as Internet 
          Drafts.                                                              

   Dec 93 Submit recommendations on the various MIBs to the IESG.