Re: Seoul minutes of disman WG session

HI,

The notification log MIB last I remember had no interoperable implementations.
Who has implemented it?

At 03:15 PM 4/1/2004 -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>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 Bert.
Regards,
/david t. perkins