From mailman-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 1 08:44:41 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24958 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CDK0u-0000Hh-T3 for disman-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:47:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: disman-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:18:33 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: Mailman site list X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: mailman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. ********************************************************************** NOTE WELL: Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: o the IETF plenary session, o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3667 and RFC 3668. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3667 for details. ******************************************************************************* If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! Passwords for disman-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- disman@ietf.org hixour https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/options/disman/disman-archive%40lists.ietf.org From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 4 09:18:23 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03622 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CESh6-00069N-W5; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:16:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CESce-0005fu-Rr for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:11:24 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03284 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:11:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CESli-0005rO-Uh for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:20:48 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i94DBKYk000034 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:11:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:11:19 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79D66@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Disman (E-mail) (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:11:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org FYI and review. I believe they are reusing (or at least referencing) stuff from the DISMAN developed alarm MIB. I have not (yet) read the recent revision. Sorry that I did not forward when WG Last Call started (I guess I missed it). Bert -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 22:29 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete This email concludes the Working Group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec Authors, Please address the comments made during last call by updating the draft and republishing. Please inform the list of any changes you make. Thanks, Adrian From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 4 09:29:13 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04289 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CESs4-00070E-8i; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:27:20 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CESmL-0006Rb-L1 for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:21:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03833 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CESvP-0007WS-VQ for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:30:49 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i94DKpFu009089 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:20:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:20:50 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79D68@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Disman (E-mail) (E-mail)" Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:20:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: "Adrian Farrel \(E-mail\)" Subject: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org So the WG chair agrees it would have been goor to check with DISMAN WG. I guess if we do review quickly, that that would be good. Bert -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 15:17 To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: Re: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete Hi, Yes, I guess that would have been sensible. Thanks for catching it. Of course, it there are any comments arising, we will fold them in. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: RE: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete > Did you tell DISMAN WG (doing ALARM MIB) that this last call > had been going on? I would have done so myself, but I guess > I missed the start of the last call. > > Anyway, I have forwarded the below, just in case. > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 22:29 > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call complete > > > > > > This email concludes the Working Group last call on > > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec > > > > Authors, > > > > Please address the comments made during last call by updating > > the draft and republishing. > > Please inform the list of any changes you make. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 4 10:15:46 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07972 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:15:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CETZ5-00078i-PO; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:11:47 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CETVs-00065o-7R for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:08:30 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07206 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CETel-0007I6-Ev for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:17:39 -0400 Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i94E0bpw002111 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:00:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i94E0Tpw001851 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 09:00:31 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last callcomplete Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:08:04 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last callcomplete Thread-Index: AcSqFh0wjHvDPkCnRP6DB6CzpordpAAAt1WA From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" , "Disman \(E-mail\) \(E-mail\)" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Adrian Farrel \(E-mail\)" X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I suggest the following changes: In Section 3.1.3 OLD In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". The values used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org. NEW: In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as " GMPLS Alarms". The = values used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values are managed by IANA, see the IANA Considerations Section IN the IANA Considerations Section: OLD: Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM- MIB]. The suggested Error code value is 28. NEW: Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code is "GMPLS Alarms" and uses Error Values similar to = IANAItuProbableCause defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. The Error code value allocated = by IANA=20 is TBD, see http://www.iana.org. In Section 6.1 OLD: [ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004 NEW:=20 [ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", RFC 3877, September 2004 =20 What I suggest is to require from IANA a code value for 'GMPLS Alarms' , = and then use the text as suggested. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: disman-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:disman-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: 04 October, 2004 3:21 PM > To: Disman (E-mail) (E-mail) > Cc: Adrian Farrel (E-mail) > Subject: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging=20 > Group last callcomplete >=20 >=20 > So the WG chair agrees it would have been goor to check with=20 > DISMAN WG. > I guess if we do review quickly, that that would be good. >=20 > Bert >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 15:17 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Subject: Re: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last call > complete >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Yes, I guess that would have been sensible. Thanks for catching it. >=20 > Of course, it there are any comments arising, we will fold them in. >=20 > Adrian > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > To: "'Adrian Farrel'" > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 2:12 PM > Subject: RE: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last=20 > call complete >=20 >=20 > > Did you tell DISMAN WG (doing ALARM MIB) that this last call > > had been going on? I would have done so myself, but I guess > > I missed the start of the last call. > >=20 > > Anyway, I have forwarded the below, just in case. > >=20 > > Bert > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > > > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 22:29 > > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > > Subject: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last=20 > call complete > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > This email concludes the Working Group last call on=20 > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec > > >=20 > > > Authors, > > >=20 > > > Please address the comments made during last call by updating=20 > > > the draft and republishing. > > > Please inform the list of any changes you make. > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > > > Adrian > > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 4 14:55:16 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02847 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEXru-0004gL-6H; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:47:30 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEUYU-0002Zu-ES for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:15:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13551 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:15:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay2.mail.uk.clara.net ([80.168.70.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEUhZ-0000zG-Bz for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:24:39 -0400 Received: from du-069-0009.access.clara.net ([217.158.132.9] helo=Puppy) by relay2.mail.uk.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CEUYL-0008VV-A4; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:15:05 +0100 Message-ID: <0b4e01c4aa24$f94a09a0$42849ed9@Puppy> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" , "Disman \(E-mail\) \(E-mail\)" References: Subject: Re: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group last callcomplete Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:15:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:47:29 -0400 Cc: lb@movaz.com X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Dan, [Lou Berger copied on this email as Ed. of this draft] [My DISMAN posting will probably bounce]-: > I suggest the following changes: > >In Section 3.1.3 > >OLD > > In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses > the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". The values > used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for > IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values > are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org. > >NEW: > > > In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses > the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as " GMPLS Alarms". The values > used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for > IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values > are managed by IANA, see the IANA Considerations Section I see two changes. 1. "Alarms" --> "GMPLS Alarms" I'm not sure why you propose this change. The alarms indicated are NOT GMPLS alarms. They are Alarm MIB alarms indicated using GMPLS signaling. I presume that the Alarm MIB does not refer to them as GMPLS Alarms. 2. Reference changed from URL to IANA Considerations Section I have no strong feeling on this, but it seems to me that the IANA Considerations Section is intended to list IANA actions for this draft, not to provide reference information for the reader. I anything, I would tend to strike the whole sentence ["Note these..."] as irrelevant. >In the IANA Considerations Section: > >OLD: > > Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code > is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM- > MIB]. The suggested Error code value is 28. > >NEW: > >Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code > is "GMPLS Alarms" and uses Error Values similar to IANAItuProbableCause > defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. The Error code value allocated by IANA > is TBD, see http://www.iana.org. I see points: 1. Change of "Alarms" to "GMPLS Alarms". As above. 2. Addition of "similar to ...." This is good, but must use "which are the same as..." 3. Removal of suggested value. We MUST suggest a value to IANA. This is a complex code space and it is highly helpful to IANA that we suggest a value. 4. Reference to IANA URL. As before, this section is provided for IANA's benefit. So no URL is needed. >In Section 6.1 > >OLD: > >[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", > draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004 > >NEW: > >[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", > RFC 3877, September 2004 Yup. We noticed that. Well done! > What I suggest is to require from IANA a code value for 'GMPLS Alarms' , and then use the text as suggested. Thanks. Yes, we could do this, but have no need as the established procedures for managing the RSVP code points are well understood by the community and by IANA. Thus, the actual value will be supplied just prior to RFC Ed. If there is a need for resolution of this particular value sooner than that, we will of course apply to IANA under the provisions of draft-kompella-rsvp-change-02.txt Cheers, Adrian From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 4 15:39:30 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA07835 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEYNA-0003gv-Vk; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:19:48 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEYEh-00086K-1k for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:11:04 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04673 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEYNp-00060y-Bm for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:20:29 -0400 Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i94J3Ppw027087 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id i94J3Mpw027053 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:03:23 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group lastcallcomplete Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:10:58 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info Workging Group lastcallcomplete Thread-Index: AcSqQ7nq8APKOu8GTPmKEEguUDay8gAARpwA From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Adrian Farrel" , "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" , "Disman \(E-mail\) \(E-mail\)" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8f374d0786b25a451ef87d82c076f593 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: lb@movaz.com X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable See in-line.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: disman-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:disman-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 04 October, 2004 5:15 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Disman=20 > (E-mail) (E-mail) > Cc: lb@movaz.com > Subject: Re: [Disman] FW: Communication of Alarm Info=20 > Workging Group lastcallcomplete >=20 >=20 > Thanks Dan, >=20 > [Lou Berger copied on this email as Ed. of this draft] > [My DISMAN posting will probably bounce]-: >=20 > > I suggest the following changes: > > > >In Section 3.1.3 > > > >OLD > > > > In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses > > the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". =20 > The values > > used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for > > IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note=20 > these values > > are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org. > > > >NEW: > > > > > > In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses > > the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as " GMPLS=20 > Alarms". The values > > used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for > > IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note=20 > these values > > are managed by IANA, see the IANA Considerations Section >=20 > I see two changes. > 1. "Alarms" --> "GMPLS Alarms" > I'm not sure why you propose this change. The alarms=20 > indicated are NOT GMPLS alarms. They > are Alarm MIB alarms indicated using GMPLS signaling. I=20 > presume that the Alarm MIB does > not refer to them as GMPLS Alarms. Sorry - I was confused and believed that you are suggesting to extend = the TC with a new value specific to GMPLS. This being not the case, I am = tabling my sugestion.=20 > 2. Reference changed from URL to IANA Considerations Section > I have no strong feeling on this, but it seems to me that the=20 > IANA Considerations Section > is intended to list IANA actions for this draft, not to=20 > provide reference information for > the reader. I anything, I would tend to strike the whole=20 > sentence ["Note these..."] as > irrelevant. >=20 I believe that readability for the RFC user cannot harm. I would not = fight to death about this however, and striking out the phrase is OK to = me as well.=20 >=20 > >In the IANA Considerations Section: > > > >OLD: > > > > Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. =20 > The Error Code > > is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM- > > MIB]. The suggested Error code value is 28. > > > >NEW: > > > >Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code > > is "GMPLS Alarms" and uses Error Values similar to =20 > IANAItuProbableCause > > defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. The Error code=20 > value allocated by IANA > > is TBD, see http://www.iana.org. >=20 > I see points: > 1. Change of "Alarms" to "GMPLS Alarms". As above. > 2. Addition of "similar to ...." > This is good, but must use "which are the same as..." > 3. Removal of suggested value. > We MUST suggest a value to IANA. This is a complex code space and > it is highly helpful to IANA that we suggest a value. > 4. Reference to IANA URL. As before, this section is provided=20 > for IANA's > benefit. So no URL is needed. >=20 >=20 > >In Section 6.1 > > > >OLD: > > > >[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", > > draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004 > > > >NEW: > > > >[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", > > RFC 3877, September 2004 >=20 > Yup. We noticed that. Well done! >=20 > > What I suggest is to require from IANA a code value for=20 > 'GMPLS Alarms' , and then use > the text as suggested. >=20 > Thanks. Yes, we could do this, but have no need as the=20 > established procedures for managing > the RSVP code points are well understood by the community and=20 > by IANA. Thus, the actual > value will be supplied just prior to RFC Ed. If there is a=20 > need for resolution of this > particular value sooner than that, we will of course apply to=20 > IANA under the provisions of > draft-kompella-rsvp-change-02.txt >=20 > Cheers, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From disman-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 5 11:52:24 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09393 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:52:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEra3-0003XV-2E; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:50:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CErZF-0003MO-HP for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:49:33 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA09124 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEriY-0006kz-Ez for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:59:11 -0400 Received: from [10.1.1.171] (dummy.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76A41BAC4D; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:48:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:49:04 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: Randy Presuhn , "Disman (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Disman] Problem advancing remote operations Message-ID: <2147483647.1096998543@[10.1.1.171]> In-Reply-To: <007101c4a673$df2af200$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> References: <007101c4a673$df2af200$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97c820c82c68af374c4e382a80dc5017 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy, I also have a clear preference for option 1. Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@netlab.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de --On 29.09.2004 15:29 Uhr -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > I've merged the information from the various implementation reports > in preparation for requesting advancement to Draft Standard. There's > just one little problem: I can find only one implementation report for > the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB module. As I see it, we have a few options. > > 1 Give draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-04.txt to our AD now, > recomending cycling at Proposed Standard, and, if another implementation > report shows up, ask the IESG to advance it to Draft Standard without > issuing a new RFC. > > 2 Wait until another DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB implementation report > shows up, and then hand draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-04.txt > to our AD to take to the IESG for consideration as Draft Standard. > > 3 Remove DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB from the document, and request that > the updated document be advanced. Put the lookup MIB into a new > document, requesting that it start out at Proposed Standard. > > My personal preference would be option (1), but I'd like to hear from the > rest of the WG before proceding. > > Please check the combined implementation report for errors or omissions. > (Best displayed using a monospace font.) I'm really surprised that only one > implementation report for DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB has shown up. > > Randy > ====================================================== > > > Implementation | Submitted By | Submitter's | > Report | | Address | > ---------------+-----------------+----------------------------+ > B | J. Chen | chenj@buptnet.edu.cn | > R | Govind Haridass | gharidas@riverstonenet.com | > J | Daniel Chuang | dchuang@juniper.net | > > > Report | Implementation Source > -------+------------------------------------------------------- > B | Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications > | Network Information Center > J | Juniper > R | SNMP Research > > > Module: DISMAN-PING-MIB > > Groups | Implementation | > Implemented | B | J | R | > -----------------------+----+-----+-----+ > pingGroup | y | y | y | > pingNotificationsGroup | y | y | y | > pingTimeStampGroup | y | y | y | > > > There were reports on three independent implementations, and all > supported all three object groups in this MIB module. Additional > details on the individual objects implemented: > > OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | > access supported | B | J | R | > -------------------------------+----+-----+-----+ > pingMaxConcurrentRequests | - | rw | rw | > pingCtlStorageType | rw | rw | rw | > pingCtlType | rw | rw | rw | > pingCtlByPassRouteTable | rw | rw | rw | > pingCtlSourceAddressType | rw | rw | rw | > unknown | n | y | n | > ipv4 | n | y | y | > ipv6 | n | n | n | > pingCtlSourceAddress | rw | rw | rw | > pingCtlIfIndex | rw | rw | rw | > pingCtlDSField | rw | rw | rw | > pingResultsIpTargetAddressType | ro | ro | ro | > unknown | y | y | n | > ipv4 | y | y | y | > ipv6 | y | n | n | > pingResultsIpTargetAddress | ro | ro | ro | > 0 | y | y | | > 4 | y | y | | > 16 | y | n | | > > > > > Module: DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB > > There were reports on three independent implementations of > the DISMAN-TRACROUTE-MIB, and all three supported all four > groups. > > Groups | Implementation | > Implemented | B | J | R | > -----------------------------+----+-----+-----+ > traceRouteGroup | y | Y | Y | > traceRouteTimeStampGroup | y | Y | Y | > traceRouteNotificationsGroup | y | Y | Y | > traceRouteHopsTableGroup | y | Y | Y | > > > Additional details on support of specific OBJECT-TYPES: > > OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | > access supported | B | J | R | > --------------------------------+----+-----+-----+ > traceRouteMaxConcurrentRequests | - | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlSourceAddressType | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlSourceAddress | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlIfIndex | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlMiscOptions | rw | rw | ro | > traceRouteCtlStorageType | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlDSField | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteCtlType | rw | rw | rw | > traceRouteResultsIpTgtAddrType | | | | > unknown | y | y | n | > ipv4 | y | y | y | > ipv6 | y | n | n | > traceRouteResultsIpTgtAddr | | | | > 0 | y | y | | > 4 | y | y | | > 16 | y | n | | > traceRouteProbeHistoryHAddrType | | | | > unknown | y | y | n | > ipv4 | y | y | y | > ipv6 | y | n | n | > traceRouteProbeHistoryHAddr | | | | > 0 | y | y | | > 4 | y | y | | > 16 | y | n | | > traceRouteHopsIpTgtAddressType | | | | > unknown | y | y | n | > ipv4 | y | y | n | > ipv6 | y | n | n | > traceRouteHopsIpTgtAddress | | | | > 0 | y | y | | > 4 | y | y | | > 16 | y | n | | > > > Module: DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB > > > There was one report of implementations of the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB > module. It implemented the mandatory object group. > > > Groups | Implementation | > Implemented | B | > -----------------------------+----------------+ > lookupGroup | y | > > > Additional details on support of specific OBJECT-TYPES: > > OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | > access supported | B | > --------------------------------+---------------------+ > lookupMaxConcurrentRequests | n (not implemented?) > lookupPurgeTime | n (not implemented?) > lookupCtlTargetAddressType | > ipv4 | y > ipv6 | y > dns | y > lookupCtlTargetAddress | > ipv4 | y > ipv6 | y > dns | y > lookupResultsAddressType | > ipv4 | y > ipv6 | y > dns | y > lookupResultsAddress | > ipv4 | y > ipv6 | y > dns | y > > > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 5 16:38:59 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09452 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:38:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEvlA-0000Oq-0q; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:18:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEvbh-0001mB-VH for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:08:22 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04538 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.74]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEvl1-0004l4-EJ for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:18:02 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-170-164.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.170.164] helo=oemcomputer) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CEvbc-00021p-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:08:16 -0700 Message-ID: <001201c4ab17$151df9a0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Disman \(E-mail\)" References: <98F04BA831360C4FB5F7FC0118D91828054CBA07@pi.jnpr.net> Subject: Re: [Disman] Problem advancing remote operations Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:08:29 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: John Scano , Chintan Sheth , Jason Perreault X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - I'm really happy to have received this latest implementation report for the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB. I'll merge it with the reports that I've previously posted, and send the updated report to the working group mailing list. Randy disman WG chair ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scano" To: "Randy Presuhn" Cc: "Jason Perreault" ; "Chintan Sheth" Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: RE: [Disman] Problem advancing remote operations Hi Randy, Yes - you may forward an implementation report to the WG. The Juniper E-Series router(s) have supported the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB since Sept of '00. Our implementation is complete in that we support all of the objects. My experience to date leads me to believe that this MIB is hardly used if at all, which is based on no customer inquiries or problem reports. Admittedly, I do not know for sure. john ... From disman-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 5 16:50:17 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10341 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEw7f-0003pe-Eq; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:41:23 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEvxq-0008OH-Ba for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:31:14 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07771 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.46]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEw7A-0008WL-73 for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:40:54 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-170-164.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.170.164] helo=oemcomputer) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CEvxe-0007J7-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:31:02 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c4ab1a$430de520$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Bert Wijnen" References: <007101c4a673$df2af200$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:31:15 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 20f22c03b5c66958bff5ef54fcda6e48 Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" Subject: [Disman] Implementation Report for Remote Operations MIB modules X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi Bert - In preparation for advancing the disman Remote Operations MIB modules to Draft Standard, here are implementation reports for the DISMAN-PING-MIB, the DISMAN-TRACROUTE-MIB, and the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB. There were at least two independent implementations of each of these. There was at least one freely-available implementation ("B") for all three MIB modules. Implementation | Submitted By | Submitter's | Report | | Address | ---------------+-----------------+----------------------------+ B | J. Chen | chenj@buptnet.edu.cn | R | Govind Haridass | gharidas@riverstonenet.com | J | Daniel Chuang | dchuang@juniper.net | E | John Scano | jscano@juniper.net | Note that "E" and "J" were done by different groups at Juniper, and were reported separately. Report | Implementation Source -------+------------------------------------------------------- B | Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications | Network Information Center E | Juniper (E-Series routers) J | Juniper R | SNMP Research Module: DISMAN-PING-MIB Groups | Implementation | Implemented | B | J | R | -----------------------+----+-----+-----+ pingGroup | y | y | y | pingNotificationsGroup | y | y | y | pingTimeStampGroup | y | y | y | There were reports on three independent implementations, and all supported all three object groups in this MIB module. Additional details on the individual objects implemented: OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | access supported | B | J | R | -------------------------------+----+-----+-----+ pingMaxConcurrentRequests | - | rw | rw | pingCtlStorageType | rw | rw | rw | pingCtlType | rw | rw | rw | pingCtlByPassRouteTable | rw | rw | rw | pingCtlSourceAddressType | rw | rw | rw | unknown | n | y | n | ipv4 | n | y | y | ipv6 | n | n | n | pingCtlSourceAddress | rw | rw | rw | pingCtlIfIndex | rw | rw | rw | pingCtlDSField | rw | rw | rw | pingResultsIpTargetAddressType | ro | ro | ro | unknown | y | y | n | ipv4 | y | y | y | ipv6 | y | n | n | pingResultsIpTargetAddress | ro | ro | ro | 0 | y | y | | 4 | y | y | | 16 | y | n | | Module: DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB There were reports on three independent implementations of the DISMAN-TRACROUTE-MIB, and all three supported all four groups. Groups | Implementation | Implemented | B | J | R | -----------------------------+----+-----+-----+ traceRouteGroup | y | Y | Y | traceRouteTimeStampGroup | y | Y | Y | traceRouteNotificationsGroup | y | Y | Y | traceRouteHopsTableGroup | y | Y | Y | Additional details on support of specific OBJECT-TYPES: OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | access supported | B | J | R | --------------------------------+----+-----+-----+ traceRouteMaxConcurrentRequests | - | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlSourceAddressType | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlSourceAddress | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlIfIndex | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlMiscOptions | rw | rw | ro | traceRouteCtlStorageType | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlDSField | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteCtlType | rw | rw | rw | traceRouteResultsIpTgtAddrType | | | | unknown | y | y | n | ipv4 | y | y | y | ipv6 | y | n | n | traceRouteResultsIpTgtAddr | | | | 0 | y | y | | 4 | y | y | | 16 | y | n | | traceRouteProbeHistoryHAddrType | | | | unknown | y | y | n | ipv4 | y | y | y | ipv6 | y | n | n | traceRouteProbeHistoryHAddr | | | | 0 | y | y | | 4 | y | y | | 16 | y | n | | traceRouteHopsIpTgtAddressType | | | | unknown | y | y | n | ipv4 | y | y | n | ipv6 | y | n | n | traceRouteHopsIpTgtAddress | | | | 0 | y | y | | 4 | y | y | | 16 | y | n | | Module: DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB There were two reports of implementations of the DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB module. Both implemented the mandatory object group for lookupCompliance, which is a superset of the lookupMinimumComplaince. Groups | Implementation | Implemented | B | E | -----------------------------+----------------+ lookupGroup | y | y | Additional details on support of specific OBJECT-TYPES: OBJECT-TYPE | Implementation | access supported | B | E | --------------------------------+---------+------+ lookupMaxConcurrentRequests | n (?) | y | lookupPurgeTime | n (?) | y | lookupCtlTargetAddressType | | | ipv4 | y | y | ipv6 | y | y | dns | y | y | lookupCtlTargetAddress | | | ipv4 | y | y | ipv6 | y | y | dns | y | y | lookupResultsAddressType | | | ipv4 | y | y | ipv6 | y | y | dns | y | y | lookupResultsAddress | | | ipv4 | y | y | ipv6 | y | y | dns | y | y | From disman-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 5 16:56:55 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11837 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEwKX-0006rM-NE; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:54:41 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEwBj-0004yS-5a for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:45:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10071 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.46]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEwL4-0002Vg-Gs for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:55:14 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-170-164.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.170.164] helo=oemcomputer) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CEwBZ-0003dG-00; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:45:25 -0700 Message-ID: <001501c4ab1c$45ba7ca0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Bert Wijnen" Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:45:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" Subject: [Disman] Re: Implementation Report for Remote Operations MIB modules X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Randy Presuhn" > To: "Bert Wijnen" > Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:31 PM > Subject: Implementation Report for Remote Operations MIB modules ... It's amazing how this works. No sooner had I sent this message, than another arrived informing of the existence of yet another implementation, and letting me know that one of the implementations may have been mis-attributed. So, we definitely have our multiple implementations, but it looks like I may need to do a little shuffling on the implementation report to ensure that credit goes where credit is due. The lesson: *please* skim through those implementation reports to make sure that I haven't messed things up in the process of summarizing! Randy From disman-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 5 21:03:17 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03507 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF08r-0000jA-2i; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:58:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF08Q-0000a6-8V for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:58:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03203 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.18]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CF0Hm-0005Gc-Oq for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:08:09 -0400 Received: from h-69-3-25-69.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.25.69] helo=oemcomputer) by goose.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CF08M-00010S-00 for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:58:22 -0700 Message-ID: <00c501c4ab3f$9b9c0800$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Disman \(E-mail\)" Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:58:35 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP. I find that I have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports, and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that has no meaning in terms of the current i-d. This doesn't seem right. Comments? Randy From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 05:42:57 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06658 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF8I5-00077f-IF; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:40:57 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF8EG-0006ij-5X for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:37:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06424 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:36:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CF8Ni-0004Kv-Au for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 05:46:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770FA9A1D; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:36:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01901-03; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:36:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from james (unknown [212.201.46.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94D69A0C; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:36:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from schoenw by james with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CF8Dj-0000YR-Gj; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:36:27 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:36:27 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Randy Presuhn Subject: Re: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Message-ID: <20041006093627.GA2078@james> Mail-Followup-To: Randy Presuhn , "Disman (E-mail)" References: <00c501c4ab3f$9b9c0800$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00c501c4ab3f$9b9c0800$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new 20030616p5 at demetrius.iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:58:35PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB > module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove > the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP. I find that I > have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports, > and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that > has no meaning in terms of the current i-d. This doesn't seem right. FWIW, smidiff flags the removal as serious errors: DISMAN-PING-MIB:1118 [1] group `pingGroup' has been deleted DISMAN-PING-MIB:1163 [1] group `pingTimeStampGroup' has been deleted DISMAN-PING-MIB:1017 [1] compliance `pingCompliance' has been deleted You can deprecate or obsolete things, but not remove things since other definitions might depend on things (e.g. agent capability statements). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 07:00:29 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11405 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF9Ui-0002Na-BQ; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:58:04 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CF9Te-000277-HE for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:56:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11146 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 06:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CF9d7-0000p0-Bs for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:06:46 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i96AusLO003809 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:56:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:56:53 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550566BA8B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de, Randy Presuhn Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:56:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:58:35PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB > > module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove > > the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP. I find that I > > have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports, > > and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that > > has no meaning in terms of the current i-d. This doesn't > seem right. > > FWIW, smidiff flags the removal as serious errors: > > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1118 [1] group `pingGroup' has been deleted > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1163 [1] group `pingTimeStampGroup' has been deleted > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1017 [1] compliance `pingCompliance' has been deleted > > You can deprecate or obsolete things, but not remove things since other > definitions might depend on things (e.g. agent capability statements). > Exactly. When advancing from PS to DS (or recycling at PS), it is allowed to "remove" things. But for our MIB modules, that "remove" should indeed be translated into "deprecate" or "obsolete". The old compliance statement(s) should also be deprecated/obsoleted and new ones should be defined that no longer have the depreacted/obsoleted groups present. Bert > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > P.O. Box 750 561, > 28725 Bremen, Germany > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 08:08:14 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16369 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 08:08:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFASH-0000B9-H6; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:59:37 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFAP3-0008C1-R3 for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:56:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15659 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:56:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from w194.mcl-va.us.cnc.net ([205.158.158.194] helo=thinkmailsrvr.bos.thinkengine.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFAYX-0004Hx-RW for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:06:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 07:55:38 -0400 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Thread-Index: AcSrk6ISGp0lHNbsTRyDmo5L3AvRbAABzYYQ From: "Chapman, Ken" To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , , "Randy Presuhn" X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RFC 2578 ("Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)"), section 10, 4th paragraph says: " Also note that obsolete definitions must not be removed from MIB modules since their descriptors may still be referenced by other information modules, and the OBJECT IDENTIFIERs used to name them must never be re-assigned." Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:57 AM > To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de; Randy Presuhn > Cc: Disman (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material >=20 > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:58:35PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > > > Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB > > > module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove > > > the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP. I find that I > > > have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports, > > > and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that > > > has no meaning in terms of the current i-d. This doesn't > > seem right. > > > > FWIW, smidiff flags the removal as serious errors: > > > > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1118 [1] group `pingGroup' has been deleted > > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1163 [1] group `pingTimeStampGroup' has been deleted > > DISMAN-PING-MIB:1017 [1] compliance `pingCompliance' has been deleted > > > > You can deprecate or obsolete things, but not remove things since other > > definitions might depend on things (e.g. agent capability statements). > > >=20 > Exactly. When advancing from PS to DS (or recycling at PS), it is allowed > to "remove" things. But for our MIB modules, that "remove" should indeed > be translated into "deprecate" or "obsolete". >=20 > The old compliance statement(s) should also be deprecated/obsoleted and > new ones should be defined that no longer have the depreacted/obsoleted > groups present. >=20 > Bert > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > > P.O. Box 750 561, > > 28725 Bremen, Germany > > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 11:58:45 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08813 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFE5A-0007tZ-8L; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:52:00 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFE1C-0007Hn-Bs for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08128 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFEAi-0002qJ-EP for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:57:45 -0400 Received: from [10.1.1.171] (dummy.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC1B1BAC4D; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:47:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:47:27 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de, Randy Presuhn Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Message-ID: <2147483647.1097084847@[10.1.1.171]> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550566BA8B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550566BA8B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Disman \(E-mail\)" X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 06.10.2004 12:56 h +0200 Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 05:58:35PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: >> >> > Merging in another implementation report on the DISMAN-PING-MIB >> > module has left me wondering whether it was a good idea to remove >> > the pingCompliance and pingGroup OBJECT-GROUP. I find that I >> > have to go back to RFC 2925 to make sense of implementation reports, >> > and that when someone says they implement the pingGroup, that >> > has no meaning in terms of the current i-d. This doesn't >> seem right. >> >> FWIW, smidiff flags the removal as serious errors: >> >> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1118 [1] group `pingGroup' has been deleted >> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1163 [1] group `pingTimeStampGroup' has been deleted >> DISMAN-PING-MIB:1017 [1] compliance `pingCompliance' has been deleted >> >> You can deprecate or obsolete things, but not remove things since other >> definitions might depend on things (e.g. agent capability statements). >> > > Exactly. When advancing from PS to DS (or recycling at PS), it is allowed > to "remove" things. But for our MIB modules, that "remove" should indeed > be translated into "deprecate" or "obsolete". > > The old compliance statement(s) should also be deprecated/obsoleted and > new ones should be defined that no longer have the depreacted/obsoleted > groups present. OK, I will insert the old groups and the compliance statements for all three MIB modules. As their new status I prefer "deprecated". Any objections? Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@netlab.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de > Bert >> /js >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen >> P.O. Box 750 561, >> 28725 Bremen, Germany >> > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 13:33:32 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15484 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFFdp-0000oA-TL; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:31:53 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFFcZ-0000Yt-3h for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:30:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15327 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bittern.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFFm5-0000ta-2q for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:40:26 -0400 Received: from h-69-3-91-12.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.91.12] helo=oemcomputer) by bittern.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CFFcV-0001Qd-00 for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:30:31 -0700 Message-ID: <004e01c4abca$36af0600$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Disman \(E-mail\)" References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550566BA8B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <2147483647.1097084847@[10.1.1.171]> Subject: Re: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:30:46 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Juergen Quittek" > To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" ; ; "Randy Presuhn" > Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:47 AM > Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material ... > OK, I will insert the old groups and the compliance statements for all > three MIB modules. > > As their new status I prefer "deprecated". Any objections? ... I understand why the new "minimal conformance" material was added. Could someone remind me why the old material would need to be deprecated? Randy From disman-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 6 19:52:07 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00883 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFLTA-0005f8-Mt; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:45:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFLRY-00057N-O0 for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:43:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00112 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 19:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFLb9-0004CP-6H for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:53:31 -0400 Received: from dialin-145-254-219-158.arcor-ip.net (dialin-145-254-219-158.arcor-ip.net [145.254.219.158]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA671BAC4D; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:43:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:43:07 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: Randy Presuhn , "Disman (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material Message-ID: <2147483647.1097113387@dialin-145-254-219-158.arcor-ip.net> In-Reply-To: <004e01c4abca$36af0600$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550566BA8B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <2147483647.1097084847@[10.1.1.171]> <004e01c4abca$36af0600$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy, --On 06.10.2004 10:30 Uhr -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > >> From: "Juergen Quittek" >> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" ; ; "Randy Presuhn" >> Cc: "Disman (E-mail)" >> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:47 AM >> Subject: RE: [Disman] changes to ping MIB conformance material > ... >> OK, I will insert the old groups and the compliance statements for all >> three MIB modules. >> >> As their new status I prefer "deprecated". Any objections? > ... > > I understand why the new "minimal conformance" material was added. > Could someone remind me why the old material would need to > be deprecated? You'll find the discussion in the messages we exchanged on the list in early July. We split the pingGroup into the pingMinimumGroup and the pingCtlRowStatusGroup, because we wanted to have the pingCtlRowStatus optional in the minimumCompliancy. Furthermore, we had different compliancy constraints for the two members pingResultsLastGoodProbe and pingProbeHistoryTime of the pingTimeStampGroup and gave up this group. In order to use the same groups in both compliancy statements (full and minimum), we replaced pingCompliancy by pingFullCompliancy. This lead to a clean definition, but probably it is not good considering the existing implementations referencing RFC 2925. pingCompliancy and pingFullCompliancy are semantically almost identical. The only difference concerns object pingProbeHistoryTime. We could also stick with the compliancy definitions of RFC 2925 and use different groups for the new minimumCompliancy. Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@netlab.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 7 14:37:32 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09922 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFcHK-0000xl-Qn; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:42:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFWlH-0007B2-Fo for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:48:43 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07197 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from waga.cysol.co.jp ([210.233.3.228]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFWun-0006Nl-R5 for disman@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:58:44 -0400 Received: from aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (aso.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.15]) by waga.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97BmS7J015150 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:48:28 +0900 (JST) Received: from cysols.com (zoe.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.233]) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i97BmSAR018352; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:48:28 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:48:20 +0900 From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni Organization: Cyber Solutions Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: disman@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:42:06 -0400 Subject: [Disman] Expression MIB X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, It seems that the Expression MIB has not found much interest in the community. I have probably missed the discussion on the demerits of the MIB. Can someone tell me or point me to any discussion about what went wrong or what is bad about this MIB? I personally find the Expression MIB a good and useful piece of work. Thanks Glenn From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 7 15:24:38 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09900 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:37:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFcyw-00022V-Hs; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:27:14 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFcsZ-0000zY-DK for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:20:40 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08217 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFcp8-00066d-Du for disman@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:17:07 -0400 Received: from h-66-167-207-237.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([66.167.207.237] helo=oemcomputer) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CFcfJ-0006kN-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:06:57 -0700 Message-ID: <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:07:14 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 932cba6e0228cc603da43d861a7e09d8 Cc: Glenn Mansfield Keeni X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Glenn Mansfield Keeni" > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:48 AM > Subject: [Disman] Expression MIB > > Hi, > It seems that the Expression MIB has not found much interest in the > community. I have probably missed the discussion on the demerits of the > MIB. > Can someone tell me or point me to any discussion about what went wrong > or what is bad about this MIB? > I personally find the Expression MIB a good and useful piece of work. ... At this stage, interest is gauged by implementation reports and discussion. If you'd like this work to be able to advance, submitting a report on your implementation would help. (Please note the attached message from over three months ago!) When there are no implementation reports, even from groups that were its biggest proponents and who have probably implemented it, claims that the MIB module is "good and useful" ring hollow. RFC 2026 section 4.1.2 is quite clear on what needs to happen before this work can advance. Randy disman WG chair ================================== Status: U Return-Path: Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by james.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1bAsxS7yG3Nl3r10 Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaSK8-0007kV-Va; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:46:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaS9J-0004II-LH for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:45 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14732 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaS9H-00063M-GV for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:43 -0400 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BaNPW-0007Pk-00 for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:32:12 -0400 Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.232]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BaKym-0003js-00 for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:56:24 -0400 Received: from h-68-164-78-145.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.164.78.145] helo=oemcomputer) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BaKym-0000XQ-00 for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:56:25 -0700 Message-ID: <007d01c4531b$5a4043c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Disman \(E-mail\)" References: <00c201c41b44$6d116880$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB Implementation Survey Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:57:20 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org X-ELNK-AV: 0 Hi - Two months have passed, and I haven't seen a single response. Suggestions? Randy > From: "Randy Presuhn" > To: "Disman (E-mail)" > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:30 PM > Subject: [Disman] Expression MIB Implementation Survey > > Hi - > > Here is the Implementation Survey for RFC 2982, the Expression MIB. > Please send responses to disman@ietf.org , or, if you would like your implementation > to remain anonymous for the implementation report, to the WG chair at > randy_presuhn@mindspring.com. > > ================================================= > > Implementat Survey for RFC 2982, > Distributed Management Expression MIB > > > Implementation Source: > Management Application / Agent: > Module: DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB > > GROUPs: > dismanExpressionResourceGroup (y/n): _ > dismanExpressionDefinitionGroup (y/n): _ > dismanExpressionValueGroup (y,n): _ > > OBJECTs: > expResourceDeltaMinimum full range supported (y/n): _ > expObjectSampleType deltas supported (y/n): _ > expObjectIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): _ > expObjectDiscontinuityIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): _ > expObjectConditionalWildcard deltas/wildcards supported (y/n): _ > > > Deployment / Operational Experience: > > > Comments: > > > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 18 21:33:41 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15369 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJibo-0005Lq-VX; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:16:16 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJQD2-0003Ti-JB for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:37:28 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00791 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from waga.cysol.co.jp ([210.233.3.228]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJQOx-0008M7-6C for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:49:48 -0400 Received: from aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (aso.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.15]) by waga.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9I5b37J026264; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:37:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from cysols.com (zoe.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.233]) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9I5b1AR022709; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:37:02 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4173567C.7020509@cysols.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:37:00 +0900 From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni Organization: Cyber Solutions Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB References: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:16:15 -0400 Cc: disman@ietf.org X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The following is the Expression MIB implementation experience at Cyber Solutions. Glenn >>================================================= >> >>Implementat Survey for RFC 2982, >>Distributed Management Expression MIB >> >> >>Implementation Source: Cyber Solutions Inc. >>Management Application / Agent: Application and Agent >>Module: DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB >> >>GROUPs: >>dismanExpressionResourceGroup (y/n): n >>dismanExpressionDefinitionGroup (y/n): y >>dismanExpressionValueGroup (y,n): y >> >>OBJECTs: >>expResourceDeltaMinimum full range supported (y/n): n >>expObjectSampleType deltas supported (y/n): y >>expObjectIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): n >>expObjectDiscontinuityIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): n >>expObjectConditionalWildcard deltas/wildcards supported (y/n): n >> >> >>Deployment / Operational Experience: The DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB is deployed on our passive sensors (CpMonitor). There is generic proprietary MIB (CpMonitorMIB) that is supported on these sensors that covers a very wide range of protocol based statistics, [VLAN, IP,MAC] wise, [IPv4,IPv6,Other] stats, [UDP,TCP.ICMP,Other] stats [Port] stats Three type of stats are served - the Min, Max and Average. The Max is taken by considering the deltas of the statistic over a small interval (msecs) in the polling window. That is a rich source of information but sending it all to the manager does ot make sense and is bandwidth/resource expensive. We use the DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB to build higher level information objects to cater to the needs of the Network Manager. We have a generic Management Application (ApMan) module of our network management platform (NetSkate Visualizer) that has a simple GUI that interfaces with the agent and allows a user to generate the expressions for the higher level information objects. The Network Manager uses these higher information objects for simple matters like statistics generation, resource management, fault detection, and security management. We have also built an aggregation mechanism which may be considered as an extension of the DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB. It basically allows the concatenation of MO instance values. This has proven to be very effective in routine polling of a large number of MOs. This cuts down the overhead of OIDs in the SNMP 'get' and 'response' PDUs. Computer resource consumption due to delta's is not a major concern on these sensors. The net-snmp code base is used for the implementation. >> >>Comments: >> 1. The MIB is nicely done - but there are places that need more clarity. Particularly the definitions of the operators and operations. 2. The wild-carding provides great power but its implementation was found to be complex. 3. I would recommend the addition of the MO-instance value concatenation operator. It has immediate and wide-spread application. From disman-bounces@ietf.org Mon Oct 18 21:35:11 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15489 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:35:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJibp-0005Lv-6y; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:16:17 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJQFM-0003fT-Ll for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:39:52 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00974 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:39:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from waga.cysol.co.jp ([210.233.3.228]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJQRI-0008P2-6e for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:52:12 -0400 Received: from aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (aso.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.15]) by waga.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9I5do7J026318; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:39:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from cysols.com (zoe.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.233]) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9I5doAR022752; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:39:50 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <41735724.4060206@cysols.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:39:48 +0900 From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni Organization: Cyber Solutions Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn , disman@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB References: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3d7f2f6612d734db849efa86ea692407 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:16:15 -0400 X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have just filled up and sent the details of our partial implementation of the DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB. Are there any pointers to discussion on the pros and cons of the DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB ? Glenn > Hi - > > >>From: "Glenn Mansfield Keeni" >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:48 AM >>Subject: [Disman] Expression MIB >> > > >>Hi, >> It seems that the Expression MIB has not found much interest in the >>community. I have probably missed the discussion on the demerits of the >>MIB. >> Can someone tell me or point me to any discussion about what went wrong >>or what is bad about this MIB? >> I personally find the Expression MIB a good and useful piece of work. > > ... > > At this stage, interest is gauged by implementation reports > and discussion. If you'd like this work to be able to advance, > submitting a report on your implementation would help. > (Please note the attached message from over three months ago!) > When there are no implementation reports, even from groups > that were its biggest proponents and who have probably implemented > it, claims that the MIB module is "good and useful" ring hollow. > RFC 2026 section 4.1.2 is quite clear on what needs to happen before > this work can advance. > > Randy > disman WG chair > > ================================== > Status: U > Return-Path: > Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) > by james.mail.atl.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1bAsxS7yG3Nl3r10 > Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:01:08 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) > by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) > id 1BaSK8-0007kV-Va; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:46:56 -0400 > Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) > by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaS9J-0004II-LH > for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:45 -0400 > Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) > by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA14732 > for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:42 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) > by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaS9H-00063M-GV > for disman@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:35:43 -0400 > Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) > id 1BaNPW-0007Pk-00 > for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:32:12 -0400 > Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.232]) > by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BaKym-0003js-00 > for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:56:24 -0400 > Received: from h-68-164-78-145.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.164.78.145] > helo=oemcomputer) > by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) > id 1BaKym-0000XQ-00 > for disman@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:56:25 -0700 > Message-ID: <007d01c4531b$5a4043c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> > From: "Randy Presuhn" > To: "Disman \(E-mail\)" > References: <00c201c41b44$6d116880$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> > Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB Implementation Survey > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:57:20 -0700 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on > ietf-mx.ietf.org > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 > Precedence: list > List-Id: Distributed Management > List-Unsubscribe: , > > List-Archive: > List-Post: > List-Help: > List-Subscribe: , > > Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org > Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org > X-ELNK-AV: 0 > > Hi - > > Two months have passed, and I haven't seen a single response. > Suggestions? > > Randy > > >>From: "Randy Presuhn" >>To: "Disman (E-mail)" >>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:30 PM >>Subject: [Disman] Expression MIB Implementation Survey >> > > >>Hi - >> >>Here is the Implementation Survey for RFC 2982, the Expression MIB. >>Please send responses to disman@ietf.org , or, if you would like your implementation >>to remain anonymous for the implementation report, to the WG chair at >>randy_presuhn@mindspring.com. >> >>================================================= >> >>Implementat Survey for RFC 2982, >>Distributed Management Expression MIB >> >> >>Implementation Source: >>Management Application / Agent: >>Module: DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB >> >>GROUPs: >>dismanExpressionResourceGroup (y/n): _ >>dismanExpressionDefinitionGroup (y/n): _ >>dismanExpressionValueGroup (y,n): _ >> >>OBJECTs: >>expResourceDeltaMinimum full range supported (y/n): _ >>expObjectSampleType deltas supported (y/n): _ >>expObjectIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): _ >>expObjectDiscontinuityIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): _ >>expObjectConditionalWildcard deltas/wildcards supported (y/n): _ >> >> >>Deployment / Operational Experience: >> >> >>Comments: >> >> >> > > > > > > From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 21 21:38:16 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26053 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKnyj-00014c-UY; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:12:25 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKige-0006bi-VS; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:33:25 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10870; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410211933.PAA10870@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:33:22 -0400 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:12:24 -0400 Cc: disman@ietf.org Subject: [Disman] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Distributed Management Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations Author(s) : J. Quittek, K. White Filename : draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt Pages : 96 Date : 2004-10-21 This memo defines Management Information Bases (MIBs) for performing remote ping, traceroute and lookup operations at a remote host. When managing a network it is useful to be able to initiate and retrieve the results of ping or traceroute operations when performed at a remote host. A Lookup capability is defined in order to enable resolving of either an IP address to an DNS name or an DNS name to an IP address at a remote host. Currently, there are several enterprise-specific MIBs for performing remote ping or traceroute operations. The purpose of this memo is to define a standards-based solution to enable interoperability. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-21154029.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-21154029.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 21 21:44:14 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26494 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKo0O-0002Ga-Mn; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:14:08 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKlJj-0001qS-Qu for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:21:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14060 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.248]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKlWQ-0005Tx-R9 for disman@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:35:03 -0400 Received: from h-69-3-28-107.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.28.107] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CKlJf-0006cd-00; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:21:52 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c4b7bc$7978a1a0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> <4173567C.7020509@cysols.com> Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:22:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Cc: Glenn Mansfield Keeni X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - It's good to finally see an implementation report for this. A couple of questions in-line below... > From: "Glenn Mansfield Keeni" > To: "Randy Presuhn" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:37 PM > Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB ... > >>GROUPs: > >>dismanExpressionResourceGroup (y/n): n This is currently a mandatory group. *If* we were to update the specification, what would you like the conformance material to look like? ... > >>expResourceDeltaMinimum full range supported (y/n): n What is the subset of values that was useful, or was this just not implemented at all? ... > >>expObjectIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): n > >>expObjectDiscontinuityIDWildcard wildcard supported (y/n): n > >>expObjectConditionalWildcard deltas/wildcards supported (y/n): n ... > 2. The wild-carding provides great power but its implementation > was found to be complex. ... Would you care to comment further on wildcarding? Was it not implemented at all or was it just implemented in limited form? Randy P.S. I cc'ed Glenn because he's not a mailing list subscriber, at least at that address. From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 21 21:47:11 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA26886 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKoAq-00044j-5A; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:24:56 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CKlcJ-00027m-W6 for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:41:10 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18548 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:41:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.248]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CKlp0-0006ml-5x for disman@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:54:15 -0400 Received: from h-69-3-28-107.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([69.3.28.107] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-a065d01.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1CKlcE-0004al-00; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:41:02 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c4b7bf$274cd600$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <41652D04.70003@cysols.com> <005a01c4ac98$799daec0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer> <41735724.4060206@cysols.com> Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:41:49 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: Glenn Mansfield Keeni X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Glenn Mansfield Keeni" > To: "Randy Presuhn" ; > Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Disman] Expression MIB ... > Are there any pointers to discussion on the pros and cons > of the DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB ? ... The split between script and expression is old. See the minutes at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/disman/disman-minutes-96jun.txt for just one example. Some of the thornier issues are in the slides for the disman session at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97dec/index.html There's lots of discussion in the WG archives, starting with the generic debate about the choice between dedicated MIBs (like Ping/Traceroute), scripting, and expressions. Some of the threads from August / September 1996 give some insight into the thinking, and Bob Stewart's postings in March 1997 mark the birth of the expression MIB. Randy From disman-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 28 18:57:50 2004 Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04619 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNGOZ-0002k8-Pb; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:57:15 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNDKb-000508-AQ for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:40:57 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA14618 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kyoto.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.21]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNDYh-0002Ag-Iw for disman@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:55:32 -0400 Received: from dialin-145-254-217-035.arcor-ip.net (dialin-145-254-217-035.arcor-ip.net [145.254.217.35]) by kyoto.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61D51BACA3 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:40:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:40:19 +0200 From: Juergen Quittek To: disman@ietf.org Message-ID: <2147483647.1098988818@dialin-145-254-217-035.arcor-ip.net> In-Reply-To: <200410211933.PAA10870@ietf.org> References: <200410211933.PAA10870@ietf.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Disman] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, This version -05 differs from version -04 only in the conformance sections of the DISMAN-PING-MIB and the DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB. Deprecated compliance statements and object groups were added to both conformance sections. As discussed on this list before, it was wrong to delete the old compliance statements and object groups from RFC 2925 that are not in use anymore. They are missing in version -04. Now, in version -05 they appear again but with status 'deprecated'. The deprecated compliance statements are - pingCompliance, - traceRouteCompliance. The deprecated object groups are - pingGroup, - pingTimeStampGroup, - traceRouteGroup, - traceRouteTimeStampGroup. Thanks, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@netlab.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de --On 21.10.2004 15:33 h -0400 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Distributed Management Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, > Traceroute, and Lookup Operations > Author(s) : J. Quittek, K. White > Filename : draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt > Pages : 96 > Date : 2004-10-21 > > This memo defines Management Information Bases (MIBs) for performing > remote ping, traceroute and lookup operations at a remote host. When > managing a network it is useful to be able to initiate and retrieve > the results of ping or traceroute operations when performed at a > remote host. A Lookup capability is defined in order to enable > resolving of either an IP address to an DNS name or an DNS name to an > IP address at a remote host. > Currently, there are several enterprise-specific MIBs for performing > remote ping or traceroute operations. The purpose of this memo is to > define a standards-based solution to enable interoperability. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-05.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft.