Subject: (FRNETMIB) Final minutes, frnetmib WG

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:20:39 -0400

Frame Relay Service MIB WG (frnetmib)

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-serv 
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.