Last Modified: 2004-02-18
Distributed network management is widely recognized as a requirement for dealing with today's growing internets. A manager application is a good candidate for distribution if it requires minimal user interaction, it would potentially consume a significant amount of network resources due to frequent polling or large data retrieval, or it requires close association with the device(s) being managed.
The working group will limit its work to distributed network management applications where the main communication mechanism for monitoring and control is SNMP. Future work (and other working groups) may be chartered to investigate other distribution techniques such as CORBA or HTTP. The objects defined by the working group will be consistent with the SNMP architecture defined in RFC 2571. The working group will especially keep security considerations in mind when defining the interface to distributed management.
The working group will complete these tasks:
Define a Scheduling MIB
Define a Script MIB
Define a Remote Operations MIB
Define an Expression and Event MIB to support Threshold Monitoring
Define a Notification Log MIB
Define an Alarm MIB
The working group will consider existing definitions, including:
o the RMON working group's work in this area
o the Application MIB (RFC 2564), SysAppl MIB (RFC 2287) and related standards.
The work on the Alarm MIB will take into consideration existing standards and practices, such as ITU-T X.733. Whether any mappings to these other standards appear in the Alarm MIB or in separate documents will be decided by the WG. The WG will actively seek participation from ITU participants to make ensure that the ITU work is correctly understood.
It is recognized that the scope of this working group is narrow relative to the potential in the area of distributed network management. This is intentional in order to increase the likelihood of producing useful, quality specifications in a timely manner. However, we will keep in mind and account for potential related or future work when developing the framework including:
o Event and alarm logging and distribution
o Historical data collection/summarization
o Topology discovery
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Threshold Monitoring MIB. | |
Done | Meet at the Montreal IETF meeting to discuss charter and review the Threshold Monitoring MIB Internet-Draft. | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Framework document. | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Script MIB. | |
Done | Submit final version of Threshold Monitor MIB Internet-Draft for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Submit updated versions of Internet-Drafts for Script MIB. | |
Done | Meet at the IETF meeting to discuss Internet-Drafts and issues that come up on the mailing list. | |
Done | Submit final versions of Internet-Drafts for Script MIB and Schedule MIB document for consideration as Proposed Standards. | |
Done | Agree on charter revisions for future work. | |
Done | Submit final versions of Internet-Drafts for Expression, Event and Notification MIB documents for consideration as Proposed Standards. | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations Using SMIv2 | |
Done | Meeting in Oslo to discuss implementation and deployment experience with Schedule and Script mibs, identify any updates needed to these documents. | |
Done | WG agreement on direction regarding mappings to / from other alarm frameworks | |
Done | Submit updated Script and Schedule MIBs for consideration as Draft Standard (or recycle at Proposed). | |
Done | Submit updated draft of Alarm MIB for IETF meeting | |
Done | decision on question of whether recycle the Log MIB. | |
Done | Submit updated draft of Alarm MIB for IETF meeting. | |
Done | call for implementation experience and updates to the remote operations MIB. | |
Done | call for implementation experience and updates to the Event and Expression MIBs. | |
Done | WG last call on Alarm Management MIB. | |
Done | Alarm Management MIB delivered to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. | |
Feb 04 | WG last call on updates to Remote Operations MIB | |
Mar 04 | Implementation Report on Remote Operations MIB | |
Mar 04 | Remote Operations MIB submitted to IESG for consideration as Draft Standard |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC2591 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for Scheduling Management Operations |
RFC2592 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts |
RFC2925 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup Operations |
RFC2982 | PS | Distributed Management Expression MIB |
RFC2981 | PS | Event MIB |
RFC3014 | PS | Notification Log MIB |
RFC3165 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for the Delegation of Management Scripts |
RFC3231 | PS | Definitions of Managed Objects for Scheduling Management Operations |
Minutes for the disman WG session in Seoul The Distributed Management (disman) Working group met for one hour at the IETF meeting at the Lotte Hotel in Seoul on Tuesday, March 2, 2003. Randy Presuhn chaired the session. Shailaja Yadawad and Dan Romascanu kindly provided the notes from which these minutes were assembled. No changes were needed to the posted agenda. The first major item was the review of the status of current work. The Alarm Report Control MIB module was in the RFC editor queue. The Alarm MIB was still in the IESG, and had not yet reached the RFC editor. Sharon Chisholm, one of the document's editors, took the action item to contact the area director, and to inform the WG chair if there were any remaining problems. The Remote Operations MIB update was in working group last call, with only one comment received. The group needs feedback before forwarding it to the IESG. A quick poll of the room revealed that many there had not yet read the update to the Remote Operations MIB, RFC 2925. Consequently an action item for the room was to read the update I-D. The chair will send a request for interoperability reports. The Script MIB appears to be ready to advance to Draft Standard. It is deployed and used, but there was the question of finding editorial resources. Juergen Schoenwaelder, the primary editor, was not at the session. The WG chair took the action item to determine whether there was WG consensus to advance the RFC "as is" since there were no known technical problems, and to request interoperability reports. The situation with the Schedule MIB was identical to that with the Script MIB, so the WG chair took the action item to determine whether it, too, could be advanced "as is". The WG chair called for volunteers to provide editorial assistance. (Subsequently, we heard from the current editor that he'd be able to do this.) Mixed feedback was expressed about the expression MIB. Some find the MIB complicated to implement, and while other members shared how customers are using this MIB. WG members to share implementation reports. Currently only one implementation is known, and there are questions about whether it is worth investing additional effort in this. Only one implementation of the event MIB was discussed in the session. Since Cisco is using it, Elliot Lear would take it as editor if there is another vendor that does it. (Subsequently we learned from Wes Hardaker, who was not able to attend the meeting, that the Event MIB is fairly heavily used by Net-SNMP users, though only for local agent queries.) WG members need to share implementation reports on the Event MIB, RFC 2981. The updates to the Notification Log MIB (RFC 3014) appear to be in fairly good shape for advancement to Draft Standard, but due to workload a new editor is needed to handle these mostly administrative details. The next major item was the review of liaison activity, an item from the ITU on the "structured" probable cause work. Sharon Chisholm agreed to forward the URL of the original liaison to the WG mailing list. Bert Wijnen, our Area Director, provided some helpful clarification on liaisons; the WG chair should email responses directly, copying to Bert and Scott Bradner. The next major item was Juergen Quittek's presentation on an alternative his colleagues implemented to the expression MIB. The discussion focused on why their proposal would be easier to configure or lighter weight than the Expression MIB. In subsequent discussion, Juergen took an action item to determine whether the problem could be solved using objects from RMON groups. The next presentation, by Shailaja Yadawad, provided another look at how the expression MIB problems might be addressed. Entitled "Advanced History Collection", it was inspired by RMON work. The main question was how this MIB could simplify configuration. There was limited discussion, since the I-D had missed the cutoff date. It was agreed that additional discussion would be appropriate on the mailing list after the draft became available. Shailaja took the action item to submit the draft. The group then briefly discussed milestone updates for the charter. The chair will submit proposals to the list, and then, if agreed, to |