Review of <draft-ietf-snanau-appnmib-03.txt>

["R.E. (Robert) Moore (254-4436)" <[e-mail]>]

Deirdre / Joel,

First, I should introduce myself to Joel:  I'm Bob Moore, and I'm chair
of the snanau WG that you're about to inherit at IETF 38.  Before that
happens, though, we have a little business to try to wrap up while we're
still in the NM Area:

  -  The APPN MIB has Randy's final blessing, so what happens now?  I
     *think* Bill Kwan told me that the AD (still Deirdre for the moment)
     handles the step of getting overall approval to issue the document
     as a Proposed Standard RFC, but I could be wrong about this.  Let me
     know if there's something more the WG needs to do.

     I have no idea what to put into a nontrivial Security Considerations
     section for the APPN MIB.  I've looked at recent RFCs, and I haven't
     found any protocol-related MIB that has one.  Maybe we (where I
     guess the "we" = the core of the old NM Area, which will be in the
     O&M Area) can come up with some standard text explaining how the
     SNMP infrastructure provides the security for SNMP transactions,
     independent of the content of any given resource-related MIB.

  -  The DLUR and HPR MIBs are available for Randy's review.  We know
     that Randy is busy, so we'll take his comments whenever we get them.

  -  I've already announced an interim meeting for the WG at AIW 13,
     which will be held in Raleigh the week of March 24.  Since this will
     be prior to IETF 38, I guess we'll still be in the NM Area at that
     time.  In addition to working on the Extended Border Node MIB (yes,
     Randy, there will be at least one more MIB waiting behind the DLUR
     and HPR MIBs :-)), we're going to work on updating our charter to
     reflect what we've done, and what we're planning to do.  Once I have
     the updated charter, I'll have to figure out where/how to post it.

Joel, as Deirdre already knows, our WG always meets at the APPN
Implementers Workshop (AIW), never at the IETF.  In addition to helping
out with the IETF crunch for meeting slots/rooms, we've found that it
helps us to develop our MIBs in an environment where the protocol experts
are immediately available to us.  Also, we meet jointly as the IETF
snanau WG and the AIW APPN MIBs SIG; typically we work through the early
stages of AIW approval first, then cut over to the IETF path with our
initial Internet-Draft once we have basic agreement on our document.  I
don't foresee any change to this mode of operation for the WG.

Joel, I'm looking forward to meeting you and talking with you in Memphis.

Regards,
Bob Moore
------------------------------- Referenced Note ---------------------------
Received: from dresden.bmc.com by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
   Thu, 20 Feb 97 17:42:48 EST
Received: by dresden.bmc.com
	(1.40.112.4/16.2) id AA082109081; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:51:21 -0600
Received: from crow.bmc.com(198.147.191.100) by dresden.bmc.com via smap (3.2)
	id xma008124; Thu, 20 Feb 97 16:51:12 -0600
Received: from dorothy.peer.com by crow.bmc.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA59315; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:41:29 -0600
Received: by dorothy.peer.com
	(1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA119148471; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:41:11 -0800
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:41:11 -0800
From: Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Review of <draft-ietf-snanau-appnmib-03.txt>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=X-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Deirdre -

As you requested, I've reviewed the latest draft of the
Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN, as contained in
<draft-ietf-snanau-appnmib-03.txt> All my comments have
been accommodated, and I am happy with the overall quality
of this document.

The only thing that I noticed that might be a cause for
concern is that the document's security considerations
section is essentially vacuous.  This should be addressed,
but I strongly suspect that a "non-vacuous" security
considerations section for this MIB would not be worth
the delay of another review cycle, and suggest that this
could be worked out between the document's editor, working
group chair, and area director.

The document's editor deserves thanks for his monumental
patience and diligence in this effort.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn            BMC Software, Inc. (Silicon Valley Division)
 Voice: [phone]   (Formerly PEER Networks)  http://www.bmc.com
 Fax:   [phone]   1190 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 130
 Email: [e-mail]  San Jose, California 95129-3433  USA
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 In accordance with the BMC Communications Systems Use and Security
 Policy memo dated December 10, 1996, page 2, item (g) (the first of
 two), I explicitly state that although my affiliation with BMC may be
 apparent, implied, or provided, my opinions are not necessarily those
 of BMC Software and that all external representations on behalf of
 BMC must first be cleared with a member of "the top management team."
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------