CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Jon Saperia/DEC

DECNETIV Minutes


  1. An early draft with 28 groups was distributed for discussion
     purposes, so that we could begin the process of removing redundant
     or unnecessary variables.
  2. It was agreed that we would reorganize the MIB into groups that
     correspond to the various layers of software found in DECNet Phase
     4.  For example, the X.25, Network, Session, Routing, Data Link,
     and End Communication Layer Groups.  This will also make it easier
     to use the same approach to optional and mandatory variables that
     is used for the Internet Standard MIB. For example, X.25 and all
     variables in that branch of the tree will be mandatory in
     implementations that support X.25 and not required for those
     implementations which do not provide X.25 service.  More work is
     needed in this area and I will attempt to recast what we have
     defined into these groups.
  3. Several people expressed the desire to keep the total number of
     variables down to less than 80.  We will attempt this, however;
     since a prime purpose of the MIB is to allow DECNet Phase IV
     objects (including end systems) to be managed via SNMP, more DECNet
     variables will have to be implemented for the MIB than are
     currently found in some of the implementations in router products.
  4. Each branch of the tree will be further devided into three
     sub-groups, these will be the parameters, counters and events
     sub-groups.  In order to support the events sub-groups we will be
     defining DECNet Phase IV traps.  Steve Willis will be writing up
     something to cover experimental trap id's.
  5. For the sake of consistency each variable will have deciv prepended
     to it.
  6. There will be a Working Group meeting before the October INTEROP
     time-frame so that these changes can be reviewed.  Since a number
     of vendors have already implemented some portion of a DECNet MIB in
     their proprietary MIBs this will be an opportunity to merge them.
  7. Where information is available in other MIBs, we will not include
     that as part of the DECNet phase IV mib.  An example of this is the
     new ethernet MIB.
  8. After the meeting, it was suggested that we may want to consider
     publishing the MIB in portions such as the Network Layer or DECNet
     Phase IV Routing MIB rather than waiting to do the entire piece at
     once.  Comments on this appoach would be appreciated.
  9. Members of this list will be contacted separately to set up the
     September Meeting.


Attendees



                                   1






Chris Chiotasso          chris@sparta.com
Farokh Deboo             fjd@interlink.com
Nadya El-Afandi          nadya@network.com
Stanley Froyd            sfroyd@salt.acc.com
Charles Hedrick          hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu
Steven Hunter            hunter@ccc.mfecc.arpa
David Perkins            dave_perkins@3com.com
Jonathan Saperia         saperia%tcpjon@decwrl.dec.com
Steve Willis             swillis@wellfleet.com



                                   2