2.4.6 Entity MIB (entmib)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 56th IETF Meeting in San Francisco, California USA. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2003-01-20

Chair(s):
Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
Operations and Management Area Director(s):
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Operations and Management Area Advisor:
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: entmib@ietf.org
To Subscribe: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
Archive: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/entmib/current/maillist.htm
Description of Working Group:
This working group is chartered to standardize a set of managed objects representing logical and physical entities and the relationships between them. Logical entities can occur when a single agent supports multiple instances of one MIB, such as RFCs 1493, 1525, or 1850 where each instance represents a single (logical) device/entity. Physical entities are the actual physical components on which the logical entities operate; typically, the physical components exist in a hierarchy.

The set of objects will be consistent with the SNMP framework and existing SNMP standards.

The scope of the defined managed objects should allow an NMS to interrogate a standard SNMP context and thereby discover what logical and physical entities exist, how to access the MIB information of each logical entity, and the relationships between the various entities. The MIB should support both a single agent or multiple agents in one physical entity.

The WG will also standardize a set of managed objects representing sensor entities. Sensor entities are physical entities that report a value based on external conditions, such as temperature sensors, power monitors, etc. The Sensor Entity MIB will augment the basic Entity MIB to allow an NMS to obtain the value reported by a sensor. This MIB will not contain internal support for alarms or thresholds, but should work with standard alarm and threshold MIBs, such as RMON-2.

Goals and Milestones:
Done  Post Internet-Draft for Entity MIB.
Done  Post updated Entity MIB Internet-Draft.
Done  Submit final version of Internet-Draft for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Done  Finalize scope of changes/augmentations to RFC 2037
Done  Post updated/new Internet Drafts
Done  Reach agreement on changes/extensions to RFC 2037
Done  Evaluate status of RFC 2037 and report to the IESG if it should be recycled at Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard.
Done  Submit Internet Draft containing Entity MIB Extensions to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
Done  Evaluate status of Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports
Done  Recommend to the IESG if Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard.
Done  Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB
Done  Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues
Done  Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard
DEC 02  Re-cycle the updated Entity MIB at proposed standard, if necessary
Done  Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard
Done  Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB
Done  Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues
JAN 03  Publish state/status extensions as a WG I-D
MAR 03  Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports
MAR 03  Submit state/status extensions to the IESG for Proposed Standard
MAR 03  Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports
MAR 03  Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports
Done  Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports
MAY 03  Recommend to the IESG if the Sensor Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard
MAY 03  Submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard
MAY 03  Submit the Sensor Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard
Done  Recommend to the IESG if the Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard.
JUN 03  Re-charter or shut-down the WG
Internet-Drafts:
  • - draft-ietf-entmib-v3-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-entmib-state-00.txt
    • Request For Comments:
    RFCStatusTitle
    RFC2037 PS Entity MIB
    RFC2737 PS Entity MIB (Version 2)
    RFC3433 PS Entity Sensor Management Information Base

    Current Meeting Report

     
    Entity MIB (entmib) Minutes
IETF 56 San Francisco
Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 1300-1400
==================================

AGENDA:

Intro and Agenda Bashing -- Margaret Wasserman (5 min)


Document & Milestones Status -- Margaret (20 min)
        - Review outstanding milestones
        - Entity MIB Implementation Report Status
        - Next Steps


Entity State MIB -- Sharon Chisholm (20 min)
        - Open Issues
        - Next Steps


Wrap-up and Action Items -- Margaret (5 min)


Reading List:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf
t-ietf-entmib-v3-00.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draf
t-ietf-entmib-state-00.txt

MINUTES:

Entity Senor MIB Discussion:

No implementations from those in room.  Margaret to poll list.  IF no 
implementations available, we will retry in 4-6 months.

Entity MIB Discussion:

Discussion of the current status of the Entity MIB and 
implementation reports.  

CONSENSUS:  Deprecate the LP mapping table and submit for DS.

Discussion of the changes since PS:  new CPU enum and new TC.

CONSENSUS:  Submit the document for DS, even with changes.

Entity State MIB discussion:

Open issues against January 03 version:
	- Dave's email address is wrong
	- Boilerplate needs updating

The document needs to be very explicit that it is a sparse augments in both 
directions.  A not-applicable enum would be easier to deal with than 
holes, so we will add that.

There are enums introduced that are not in the ITU documents.  Should give 
explicit eplanation of what they mean -- perhaps pointer to the alarm 
stuff that is their source.

Reference clauses in the TCs to ITU documents.

CONSENSUS:  Agreement to make the three changes listed above.

Editorial comment:  Some terms are used that are not explained first, for 
instance reference to a stack (ITU folks might not know what this is), 
locked/unlocked (non ITU folks may not know what this is).  Would be good to 
add references for terminology.  

Also, there may be subtle differences for terminology about 
reduncancy (primary/secondary and active/backup).

Will try to get an update out by the end of March(?).  Then perhaps ready 
for WG last call?

Andy raised issue with possible congestion/redundant traps when an event 
happens that affects the whole network.  May have issues when the a board 
goes down and all sub-systems also go down (sympathetic 
notification issues). 

Concerned about the case of a very large box (10-20,000 
interfaces).  Doesn't want to receive 20,000 link downs and 20,000 oper 
status downs coming from the box.   

The sympathetic notification issue is actually separate from the 
congestion issue.  It might make sense for this MIB to talk about 
controlling sympathetic notifications, but the congestion issue would need to 
be considered at the overall SNMP level -- maybe a separate WG?

Issues are related to disman alarm work.  May be able to use some 
mechanisms for sympathetic alarm suppression from there.  Also will look at 
RFC 2863.

Action Items:

Margaret to poll list for Sensor Entity MIB implementations

Andy to update Entity MIB to:
	- deprecate the LP mapping table
	- add conformance with/without CPU enum
	- new boilerplate

Margaret to post implementation reports for review (look at the RMON MIB 
reports)

Sharon and David to update the Entity State MIB to make the changes 
indicated above

Sharon and David to consider possible solutions for the 
congestion/sympathetic alarm problem

    Slides

    Agenda
    Entity MIB State Extensions