NOTE: This charter is accurate as of the 30th IETF Meeting in Toronto. It may now be out-of-date. (Consider this a "snapshot" of the working group from that meeting.) Up-to-date charters for all active working groups can be found elsewhere in this Web server.

Interfaces MIB (IFMIB) Charter

Chair(s)

Mailing List Information

Description of Working Group

The Interfaces MIB Working Group is chartered to accomplish two tasks.

First, to develop a collection of managed objects which model the relation between different entities in the data link and physical layers. The working group will explore different modeling approaches in order to develop a collection of objects which is both correct in the modeling sense and has an acceptable impact (if any) on the interfaces table from MIB-II and all media MIB modules on the standards track or under development by a working group. The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with the SNMP framework.

Second, to prepare a recommendation to the IESG evaluating RFC 1229 (the interface-extensions MIB), RFC 1231 (the token-ring MIB), RFC 1304 (the SMDS MIB), and RFC 1398 (the ethernet-like MIB) with respect to the standards track.

The recommendation will document implementation, interoperability, and deployment experience. If these experiences suggest that changes should be made to the documents, new drafts may be prepared.

For RFCs 1229, 1231, and 1304, the recommendation will report one of four outcomes for each RFC:

- that the RFC should be advanced from Proposed to Draft Standard status, without changes (if no problems are found);

-that a draft prepared by the working group should replace the RFC, and be designated a Draft Standard (if only minor changes are made);

- that a draft prepared by the working group should replace the RFC, and be designated a Proposed Standard (if major changes or feature enhancements are made); or,

- that the RFC should be designated as Historic (if this technology is problematic).

For RFC 1398, the recommendation will report one of five outcomes:

- that the RFC should be advanced from Draft Standard to Standard status, without changes (if no problems are found);

- that a draft prepared by the working group should replace the RFC, and be designated a Standard (if only editorial changes are made);

- that a draft prepared by the working group should replace the RFCs, and be designated a Draft Standard (if only minor changes are made);

- that a draft prepared by the working group should replace the RFC, and be designated a Proposed Standard (if major changes or feature enhancements are made); or,

- that the RFC should be designated as Historic (if this technology is problematic).

Goals and Milestones

Done
Post the interface layering document as an Internet-Draft.
Done
Submit the interface layering document to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Sep 1993
Issue a call for implementation and operations experience with RFCs 1229, 1231, 1304, and 1398.
Oct 1993
Evaluate experience and if necessary post revised MIBs as Internet-Drafts.
Dec 1993
Submit recommendations on the various MIBs to the IESG.

NOTE: The Internet-Draft(s) listed below may have been deleted since they are only good for six months.

Internet-Drafts