This Working Group Did Not Meet in Washington, but Held an Interim Meeting
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 40th IETF Meeting in Washington, DC. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 08-Oct-97
Chair(s):
Robert Moore <remoore@us.ibm.com>
Routing Area Director(s):
Joel Halpern <jhalpern@newbridge.com>
Routing Area Advisor:
Joel Halpern <jhalpern@newbridge.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:snanaumib@external.cisco.com
To Subscribe: snanaumib-request@cisco.com
Archive: ftp://ftp.cisco.com/snanaumib/mail-archive
Description of Working Group:
The SNA NAU MIB Working Group is chartered to define a set of managed objects for SNA Network Accessible Units. These objects will provide the ability to monitor and control those devices, providing fault, configuration, and performance management, and will be consistent with the SNMP framework and existing SNMP standards.
The working group has completed MIBs for base SNA NAU functions, for LU Type 6.2 or APPC (Advanced Program-to-Program Communication), and for APPN (Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking). MIBs for Dependent LU Requester (DLUR) and for HPR (High Performance Routing) are nearing completion. The working group is currently working on a MIB for APPN Extended Border Node (EBN).
The working group will make sure that its work is aligned with the SNA DLC MIB Working Group, due to the close relationship between the devices being worked on by the two groups.
Goals and Milestones:
Done |
|
Begin discussion of proprietary MIBS and develop a single proposal. |
Done |
|
Post an Internet-Draft of the SNA NAU Services MIB. |
Done |
|
Submit the SNA NAU Services MIB to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Post proprietary MIB modules. |
Done |
|
Develop and post a single proposal for structure of the MIB module. |
Done |
|
Meet at IETF to review proposed structure/walk through. |
Done |
|
Post Internet-Draft of the APPC MIB. |
Done |
|
Post second Internet-Draft of APPC MIB. |
Done |
|
Meet at IETF to review MIB (if necessary). |
Done |
|
Achieve consensus on the final Internet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Post Internet-Draft of the APPN MIB. |
Done |
|
Submit revised APPN MIB to as an Internet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Submit the APPC MIB Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Achieve consensus on the new SNA NAU MIB Internet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Post Internet-Draft of HPR MIB. |
Done |
|
Submit the SNA NAU MIB Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Submit revised HPR MIB as an Internet-Draft. |
Done |
|
Submit HPR MIB Internet-Draft to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Done |
|
Submit DLUR MIB to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Aug 97 |
|
Post Internet-Draft of EBN MIB. |
Oct 97 |
|
Submit revised EBN MIB Internet-Draft. |
Dec 97 |
|
Submit APPN MIB to IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard. |
Dec 97 |
|
Submit APPC MIB to the IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard. |
Dec 97 |
|
Submit EBN MIB to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. |
Internet-Drafts:
· Definitions of Managed Objects for HPR
· Definitions of Managed Objects for Extended Border Node
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC1665 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 |
RFC1666 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs using SMIv2 |
RFC2051 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for APPC |
RFC2155 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for APPN using SMIv2 |
RFC2232 |
PS |
Definitions of Managed Objects for DLUR using SMIv2 |
Minutes of the SNA NAU Services MIB (sananau) and the AIW APPN MIBs SIG Joint Meeting
Interim Meeting held in Raleigh, North Carolina at AIW 15 (11/5/97). Minutes submitted by Bob Moore, IBM Networking Software.
Bob Moore chaired the meeting. The following people were present:
Bob Moore IBM remoore@us.ibm.com
Bob Clouston Cisco clouston@cisco.com
Jim Cobban Nortel jcobban@nortel.ca
Matthew Finlayson DCL mcf@datcon.co.uk
Ed Tremblay IBM tremblay@us.ibm.com
John Irwin IBM ji@vnet.ibm.com
Mike Cambria Lucent Technologies mcambria@lucent.com
Ralph Case IBM caser@us.ibm.com
There were three major items on the meeting agenda:
I. Review Randy Presuhn's comments on the Extended Border Node MIB if he got them done in time.
He didn't, so we didn't. Whenever Randy gets around to doing these, we'll address them on the mailing list.
II. Review of the HPR-IP MIB, with a goal of going to AIW closed pages status along with the base architecture for HPR-IP. We identified one change to the MIB, to bring it more into line with the APPN MIB:
· Remove APPN Port Name as an index from all tables except the hprIpAppnPortTable. This brings the MIB into alignment with the APPN MIB (RFC 2151), in which link stations and connection networks are named globally within an APPN node, rather than relative to their ports.
We also identified an action that does not directly affect the HPR-IP MIB, but does affect the network management portion of the base HPR-IP architecture:
· Get an IANAifType value from IANA to identify the IP network that underlies an HPR-IP link. Bob Moore will forward this request to IANA.
Bob Moore agreed to update the HPR-IP MIB module, and distribute it for a two-week review period leading up to electronic CP in the AIW. After this, Bob will work with Bob Clouston to expand the MIB module to a full Internet-Draft from the WG.
III. Look at implementation experience for the APPN MIB (we expanded this to include implementation experience for the DLUR MIB as well), and think about how we should approach the task of demonstrating interoperability of our MIB implementations, to support progression of the APPN MIB to Draft Standard status in the IETF.
We discussed several specific implementation experience items that had been posted to the mailing list prior to the meeting:
· IBM/APPN 1: appnIsRtpNceId size - accepted
· IBM/APPN 2: MLTG objects - accepted
· IBM/APPN 3: Branch Extender objects - accepted
· IBM/APPN 4: ANR traffic in LS counts
- We agreed that a new object should be added to the APPN MIB, stating (globally) how an implementation handles ANR traffic for its APPN link station counts. Bob Moore will create this object.
· IBM/APPN 5: appnCosTgRowSecurity - accepted
· Cisco/APPN 1: alertTrap affectedObject
- Since IBM has not implemented this trap and object, Cisco is the only source for additional details to add here. (For example, we mentioned that we might add a section to the RFC front matter stating which affectedObject to report for every APPN Alert defined in the SNA/MS Formats manual.) Bob Clouston will investigate further.
· Cisco/APPN 2: traps to reduce polling for the link, port, and local TG tables.
- We discussed exactly what traps to have here, and what information to include in each one. Bob Clouston will provide proposals for the link and port traps. Bob Moore will provide a proposal for the local TG trap.
· [IBM/APPN 6]: trap for final values of ISR counters
- This item was not posted to the mailing list prior to the meeting. Bob Moore will provide a proposal for this trap.
· Cisco/DLUR 1: Traps to reduce polling for the PU table
- This is a harder problem than the corresponding one for the APPN MIB, because the PU table is larger and changes more frequently than the tables in the APPN MIB. Bob Clouston will look into this item further.
· [IBM/DLUR 1]: New object for new DLUR capability.
- This item was also not posted to the mailing list. We agreed that a new MIB object is needed to report whether a DLUR supports the new FID2 encapsulation capability that was recently added to the DLUR architecture. Bob Moore will create this object.
We also discussed how to demonstrate interoperability for our implementations of the APPN MIB. We agreed that it would be good to have something more than just parallel MIB walks, which would show only that we had implemented the same objects with the same syntaxes. What we really need is to examine the MIBs from APPN nodes that exist in the same APPN topology subnet, to see that the values returned by the nodes are consistent. We discussed several ways of having our different implementations in the same topology subnet:
If the AIW's Validation BOF conducts a connectivity event, then we would make sure that comparison of the MIBs in the connected nodes would be a part of it. The problem here is that the Validation BOF discussions were targeting late next spring as the earliest possible date for such an event.
Once we have implemented the new HPR-IP architecture, then (plus or minus a firewall or two!), we should be able to create an APPN topology subnet using the Internet. But this is clearly something that's not going to happen for a while. (We didn't discuss it explicitly, but it should be possible to do this *today* using DLSw. We should investigate this option further.)
Bob Clouston agreed to define a reference topology subnet, consisting of (roughly) two network nodes, one connection network, and one or two end nodes. Then each vendor could set up this network in their respective test labs, and we could compare the values returned by our respective MIB implementations. Clearly this wouldn't yield anything of significance for objects like counters, but it would be useful for the configuration objects that make up a large part of the APPN MIB.
The next planned meeting for the WG / SIG is at AIW 16, March 16-18, 1998, in Raleigh, NC.
None Received
Roster not received