Subject: (FRNETMIB) RE: Comments - WG last call on draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-servi ce-00.txt

From: "Rehbehn, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:35:39 -0400

> Thanks for your comments - especially since you did make the 
> deadline!  One 
> thing I will point out for everyone's benefit is that we did 
> discuss the 
> standards track vs. experimental issue in Adelaide, and the 
> rough consensus 
> in the meeting (excluding you, of course) was for the standards track.
> 
> For the benefit of the people (like me!) that aren't keeping 
> up with the 
> policy work in the IETF, if you could point to any specific drafts 
> regarding their framework to help people see how this doesn't 
> fit that 
> model, that would be a huge help.

RFC 2758, Definitions of Managed Objects for Service Level Agreements
Performance Monitoring, provided some of the best discussion of this issue.

Ed Ellesson made an oral presentation at the Policy WG meeting in Adeliade
to outline the need for a comprehensive policy monitoring approach.  The
problem being solved is two-fold:  what policies have reached the policy
decision point and how are the policies working.  This is the same class of
problem being addressed by the frame relay service MIB.

The issue extends beyond frame relay and should include other connection
flows such as VPN security associations, MPLS LSPs, and ATM VCs.

The IETF should produce a generic framework for service monitoring of
connection flows.  Each technology can then augment this framework for
technology-specific elements.

I don't argue that some variation of the proposed Frame Relay Service MIB
should not be published.  However, it is premature to stamp it with the
imprimatur of IETF "standard".
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe frnetmib' in the body of the message.