Subject: (FRNETMIB) SLD MIB Issue List and New Draft

From: Rob Steinberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:48:24 -0400

All,

I have recently updated the SLD MIB to address all issues.  The
resolutions may still require discussion either in Pittsburgh or on
the list (or both); however, there is now a text basis to refer to.

Please see the draft at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-frnetmib-frmrelay-service-01.txt

WARNING: This update is a major change to the MIB.  For this reason, I
commented out the location in experimental.  Two items were added as
indices to all tables, some items were removed, several items were
added and the groups were reworked to make implementation easier.

Below is the list of issues.  I look forward to discussing each in
Pittsburgh; however, all comments issued to the list will continue to
be addressed.

Rob.

+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |Originator|   Description  |   Solution          |  Status    |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Typo in         |                     |            |
| 1|Orly      |section 2.7.1   |Fix as suggested     |Resolved in |
|  |Nicklass  |"dive" should   |                     |new draft.  |
|  |          |be "divide"     |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Consistency     |                     |            |
|  |          |Problem.        |                     |            |
| 2|Orly      |SmplIndex       |Fix as suggested     |Resolved in |
|  |Nicklass  |                |                     |new draft.  |
|  |          |should be       |                     |            |
|  |          |SmplCtrlIdx     |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |No Latency      |                     |            |
|  |          |Configuration   |                     |            |
|  |          |Variables       |                     |            |
|  |          |                |                     |            |
|  |          |Ken does not    |                     |Open, but   |
|  |          |like the idea   |Fix group definitions|groups      |
| 3|Ken       |of having the   |such that they are   |modified in |
|  |Rehbehn   |variables.      |not required.        |Draft.      |
|  |          |Santa Dasu (as  |                     |(Pittsburgh)|
|  |          |well as the     |                     |            |
|  |          |editors) feels  |                     |            |
|  |          |they need to    |                     |            |
|  |          |be there.       |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Free the        |                     |            |
|  |          |Freerunning     |                     |            |
|  |          |Counts:         |                     |            |
|  |          |1) Min/Max/Avg  |                     |            |
|  |          |   have no      |We opted for Choice  |            |
|  |          |   meaning over |4.  The values are   |            |
|  |          |   time.  Should|needed for any       |            |
|  |          |   we remove    |application that will|            |
|  |          |   them?        |perform real-time    |            |
|  |          |2) Should we    |polling of the       |Open, but   |
| 4|Ken       |   remove all   |device.  In this way,|modified    |
|  |Rehbehn   |   free running |they values can have |in the MIB. |
|  |          |   counters?    |meaning and can be   |Resolve in  |
|  |          |3) Bert Wijnen  |controlled by the    |Pittsburgh. |
|  |          |   suggests     |device.  The object  |            |
|  |          |   using RFC    |frsldPvcCtrlDelayCnt |            |
|  |          |   2493 instead.|was added to support |            |
|  |          |4) Should we    |this.                |            |
|  |          |   just put a   |                     |            |
|  |          |   period of    |                     |            |
|  |          |   relevance    |                     |            |
|  |          |   into the MIB?|                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Table           |                     |            |
|  |          |Fragmentation   |This would break all |            |
|  |Ken       |Both feel       |existing             |            |
| 5|Rehbehn   |there is no     |implementations and  |Open.       |
|  |Santa Dasu|need to have    |take away a request  |(Pittsburgh)|
|  |          |availability    |from other interested|            |
|  |          |in a separate   |parties.             |            |
|  |          |table.          |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |                |Change the object    |            |
|  |          |                |names and            |            |
|  |          |                |descriptions from    |            |
|  |          |                |Source and           |            |
|  |          |                |Destination Reference|            |
|  |          |Bi-directional  |Points to Transmit   |            |
|  |          |flow tracking   |and Receive Reference|            |
|  |          |and             |Points and add the   |            |
|  |          |abandonment of  |reference points as  |            |
|  |          |the FR DTE MIB  |indexes to all       |            |
|  |          |                |tables.  Further,    |            |
|  |          |Must be able    |expand the           |Open. Change|
|  |          |to track flows  |definitions to       |in new draft|
| 6|Ken       |in both         |reflect direction and|to be       |
|  |Rehbehn   |directions,     |location.            |discussed in|
|  |          |track NNI       |                     |Pittsburgh. |
|  |          |flows and the   |In this way, the     |            |
|  |          |current         |statistics mean      |            |
|  |          |reference       |exactly what they    |            |
|  |          |point scheme    |say.  The direction  |            |
|  |          |does not allow  |can be taken into    |            |
|  |          |for this.       |account.  The        |            |
|  |          |                |locality of the      |            |
|  |          |                |information can be   |            |
|  |          |                |taken into account.  |            |
|  |          |                |                     |            |
|  |          |                |DO NOT abandon FR DTE|            |
|  |          |                |support.             |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
| 7|Ken       |Theory of       |Will add to next     |Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |Operations      |draft.               |new draft.  |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Collection      |                     |            |
|  |          |Location        |                     |            |
| 8|Ken       |                |Location variables   |Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |Why is          |removed.             |new draft.  |
|  |          |location so     |                     |            |
|  |          |important?      |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Distributed     |                     |            |
|  |          |confusion       |                     |            |
|  |          |                |This will also be    |            |
| 9|Ken       |                |resolved by solution |Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |Location of     |to number 6 above.   |new draft.  |
|  |          |distributed is  |                     |            |
|  |          |confusing.      |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Different       |                     |            |
|  |          |collection      |                     |            |
|  |          |locations for   |                     |            |
|  |          |single          |                     |            |
|  |          |CtrlTable row   |                     |            |
|  |          |                |                     |            |
|  |          |The latency     |                     |            |
|10|Ken       |and data        |Remove latency       |Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |delivery        |location.            |new draft.  |
|  |          |information     |                     |            |
|  |          |have different  |                     |            |
|  |          |locations. Why  |                     |            |
|  |          |is the          |                     |            |
|  |          |location        |                     |            |
|  |          |important to    |                     |            |
|  |          |delivery?       |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Explicit        |                     |            |
|  |          |descriptions    |                     |            |
|  |          |of operation    |                     |            |
|11|Ken       |                |No Such Name.        |Closed      |
|  |Rehbehn   |                |                     |            |
|  |          |What to report  |                     |            |
|  |          |when object is  |                     |            |
|  |          |not supported.  |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Comments        |                     |            |
|12|Ken       |All comments    |Incorporate comments |Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |must be moved   |in description       |new draft.  |
|  |          |into the        |                     |            |
|  |          |descriptions.   |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Octet delivery  |                     |            |
|  |          |precision       |                     |            |
|13|Ken       |                |Incorporate into next|Resolved in |
|  |Rehbehn   |Use 64 bit      |draft.               |new draft.  |
|  |          |counters for    |                     |            |
|  |          |octets.         |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Multiple        |This should be       |            |
|14|Ken       |reference       |resolved by solution |Open.       |
|  |Rehbehn   |pointa w/NNI    |to number 6 above.   |(Pittsburgh)|
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |                |This was a bug.  It  |            |
|15|Santa Dasu|Timestamp for   |has been returned to |Resolved in |
|  |          |counters        |                     |new draft.  |
|  |          |                |TimeTicks            |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |                |Expand explanation as|            |
|16|Santa Dasu|Outage times    |to why this belongs  |Resolved in |
|  |          |                |in the NMS           |new draft.  |
|  |          |                |application          |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Delay           |No change.  This was |            |
|17|Santa Dasu|Measurement     |per request at Oslo  |Closed      |
|  |          |Units           |IETF.                |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Delivery and    |                     |            |
|  |          |delay need not  |There is the ability |            |
|  |          |be done at      |to control delay     |Open        |
|18|Santa Dasu|same frequencey |separately and create|            |
|  |          |need separate   |multiple sample      |            |
|  |          |table.          |tables               |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Clarify         |                     |            |
|19|Santa Dasu|descriptions    |Perform clarification|Resolved in |
|  |          |of statistic    |in the next draft.   |new draft.  |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|20|Bert      |Don't import    |Remove import        |Resolved in |
|  |Wijnen    |BITS            |                     |new draft.  |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
|  |          |Use 4-digit     |                     |            |
|21|Bert      |years in        |Fix.                 |Resolved in |
|  |Wijnen    |LAST-UPDATED    |                     |new draft.  |
|  |          |and REVISION    |                     |            |
+--+----------+----------------+---------------------+------------+
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe frnetmib' in the body of the message.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:51:19 -0400

Rob,

Many thanks for all of the work you put in addressing the issues.   It's 
great to see the effort from both Rob and the people who submitted comments 
and suggestions - we will end up with a much better product as a result.

Due to the extensive nature of the changes, they will be discussed in 
Pittsburgh, which will be followed by a second WG last call.

Cheers,
Andy

-------