Subject: (FRNETMIB) Draft Frame Relay Service MIB WG (frnetmib) minutes

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:55:43 -0500

To those of you at the meeting: please review and send comments.

Thanks,
Andy

----------

Draft Frame Relay Service MIB WG (frnetmib) Minutes

Tuesday, March 28, 1300-1515
============================

Chair: Andy Malis <[email-masked]>
Minutes by Andy Malis

1. Administrivia, current documents status

Andy presented the agenda and the current status of the documents.  The 
only active WG document that was not already on the agenda was 
draft-ietf-frnetmib-atmiwf-05.txt, which is waiting for the Frame Relay 
Service MIB to complete due to cross-references - otherwise, it is ready to 
be published as an RFC.

2. Rob Steinberger and Orly Nicklass,
    draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-service-00.txt, Definitions of Managed
    Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions

See:
http://www.frforum.com/5000/Approved/FRF.13/frf13.pdf
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-service- 
00.txt

Rob presented the open issues from the last meeting.  To address them, the 
document was renamed, he detailed the delay data from the sample table, got 
an IANA experimental ID (104), and added a capabilities object to identify 
which objects can be written.  He also cleaned up some typos, fixed a 
problem in the nroff file, and some other minor changes, such as a 
revisions section to the MODULE, and added working group info to the 
contact list.

The current open issues are:
- typo in section 2.7.1: "dive" should be "divide"
- SmplIndex should be SmplControlIndex for consistent naming
- some objects have Data in their name twice to match the terminology in 
FRF.13.  We could change it, but it wouldn't match FRF.13.  We decided to 
not change it.

Rob asked for WG last call for Proposed Standard.  Ken Rehbehn felt that it 
should be experimental rather than PS, due to other ongoing work on service 
tracking MIBs.  He said that it would be premature at this time to make it 
a Proposed Standard, until the IETF has a more mature service tracking 
framework.  Thomas Narten said that it could be experimental for now, and 
it wouldn't be a big deal to change it to PS later on down the line.  Peter 
Bodeit said that having it PS would help network operators, since it would 
be easier to get the functionality from vendors.  It was also noted that 
there is currently no WG home for the service tracking MIB work.  The WG 
consensus was to go for PS and revisit the issue when it comes time to 
advance the MIB to Draft Standard, to see if it needs updating based upon 
activities elsewhere in the IETF.  Thomas gave advice on how to get an 
assignment in the MIB II branch (you make it clear in the MIB text that the 
assignment is required).

3. Prayson Pate, Bob Lynch, and Ken Rehbehn,
    draft-ietf-frnetmib-mfrmib-01.txt,
    Definitions of Managed Objects for Monitoring and Controlling the
    UNI/NNI Multilink Frame Relay Function

See:
http://www.frforum.com/5000/Approved/FRF.16/frf16.pdf
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-mfrmib-00.txt

Version -01, the current version, was sent out on 3/17.  The authors would 
like to go to next week's FRF meeting, collect any comments there, and then 
ask for last call.  Changes from last time were:
- minor formatting fixes
- added ranges, REFERENCE, and UNITs where needed
- returned a deleted object, the number of links in a bundle
- clarified dependencies of the creation operation.

There is no more functionality that should be added.  It's had about three 
spins for review.

Orly had some comments and questions on the MIB that she will send to the 
email list.

It will go for last call following the FRF meeting and the resolution of 
Orly's comments.

4. Ken Rehbehn, recent updates to draft-ietf-frnetmib-frs-mib-10.txt,
    Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service

    See:
    http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-frs-mib-10.txt

This MIB completed WG last call on 11/30, the IESG last call issued 12/8, 
Erik Nordmark's comments came on 12/30, Dave Perkin's comments came on 1/5, 
and a new revision was issued on 3/8.

The minor changes from -09 were: many editorial modifications, completeness 
of REFERENCES, size ranges, move comments into DESCRIPTION clauses, and 
combined the lists of changes since RFC 1604 into a single complete list.

More significant changes: removed the "stack" picture, which was replaced 
by more explicit text; removed the frLportVCSigPointerAdmin object; changed 
the notification OBJECT IDENTIFIER to avoid conflict with the obsolete 
trap; and reorganized the compliance groups.

Ken gave a comprehensive description of the changes in the compliance groups.

Andy discussed the fact that since new requirements have been added to the 
compliance groups, the FR service MIB will most probably have to recycled 
at Proposed rather than advanced to Draft.  This is mostly a result of the 
new frPVCConnectStatusNotif NOTIFICATION.

There is one last issue that needs resolution: frLportFragSize Integer32 
(0..8184) will be changed to have a maximum size of 4096 to make it 
consistent with other MIBs.

Ken's question: should he spin a new draft with these changes, and should 
there be second WG last call?  We felt a second WG last call was not 
necessary.  Ken is going to spin a version -11 to have a clean text for the 
IESG and the RFC Editor.

5. Open discussion

With no further discussion, we adjourned.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew G. Malis  [email-masked]  phone:978 952-7414  fax:978 392-2074
Lucent Technologies                 1 Robbins Road    Westford, MA 01886

X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe frnetmib' in the body of the message.