CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Michael Erlinger/Harvey Mudd College Minutes of the Token Ring Remote Monitoring Working Group (TRMON) Introductions A small group of individuals was present, so we went around the room giving short personal introductions. TRMON Status A final call was made for comments. The comments received were incorporated into the next draft, which is available as an Internet-Draft (draft-ietf-rmonmib-trmib-01.txt). This document was also forwarded to the Network Management Area Director with a recommendation that it become the TRMON Proposed Standard. At the working group meeting, it was pointed out that the Network Management Area Directorate has started looking at the document and that one action item is to ensure that there are no conflicts with the Token Ring MIB (RFC 1231). Once the Network Management Area Directorate is satisfied with the document, it will be forwarded to the IESG. Token Ring IEEE Efforts and Relationship to TR RMON The IEEE 802.5 committee is working on a new draft. The effort is directed towards clarification and explanation of the existing standard (in particular, clarification efforts will center on: MAC state tables, MAC insertion, and various timers). The 802.5 committee is meeting the week of 12 July 93 to discuss comments on draft three. Draft four should be available in September 93, with a conclusion of the process scheduled for March 94. Anyone interested in being on the IEEE 802.5 mailing list as an observer needs to contact Mike Erlinger. Whatever changes are made in 802.5 would be considered in a Draft Standard TRMON. RFC 1271 Advancement Process Once TRMON is released as a Proposed Standard, the TRMON Working Group will be disbanded and the RMONMIB Working Group reformed for consideration of RFC 1271 advancement. A strawman charter was presented. A draft of the RMONMIB Charter is at the end of these minutes. Three discussions ensued; the first concerned the milestone dates. It was decided that the date for the working group recommendation should be March 94, since November 93 is not realistic. In the second discussion, it was agreed that the group should attempt to forward a recommendation that follows the second possibility in the charter, e.g., a new draft with minor modifications. The third discussion area was a first pass list of RFC 1271 concerns. The following list presents only the areas for working group discussion (while the small group had various ``solutions,'' the effort was directed only at listing areas of concern). Once the RMONMIB Working Group is reconstituted, there will be an expanded discussion of RFC 1271 concerns. Thus, do not consider the list as final---just pet peeves of the attendees. o Row Status Versus Entry Status A long discussion ensued concerning pay now, pay later concerns for making this change. There was loose consensus in the group that since there is a desire for an RMON II, and since RMON II will be a distinct MIB from RMON I, that RMON II is the place for this major change (easier to market/sell this change with new functionality). o History Group Break Up Currently, Token Ring assumes a break up in the history group. This is only a reorganization and adds no new functionality. o Packet Distribution for History Packet distribution occurs in the TR history tables. Numerous people would like it to also be present in RMONMIB. The major reason for not including it is space consideration (agent). Depending on one's view, this change may be considered as either minor or major. o Clarification of Status States Providing a state diagram and/or more text would clear up concerns with the row status field. o Incorporation of SNMPv2 Macros The Area Directorate's schedule indicates that a new draft should use the new SMI, but must not use any type that will break SNMPv1 systems. o Events in SNMPv1 versus those in SNMPv2---another issue for RMON II. o Clarification of Filters ``Not'' Mask It was agreed that strict reading of the current text provides a correct interpretation, but that more clarification would reduce questions and concerns. o Order Applied to Dependent Tables Nowhere in RFC 1271 is it explicitly stated that all orders of setting variables in dependent tables are acceptable, i.e., the specification does not specify a particular order. o Clarify indexing in each table. o The RFC 1212 reference to IP address representation seems to be missed by numerous RMON readers, and the text should be repeated in RMON. o Log Entry Standardization It is probably impossible to specify fields for log entries, but the RMON document should provided a list of recommended entries. o RMON Trap Document Should the document be recreated? o Packet Match Event Removal Concern about the possibility of generating large numbers of events. o Clarify whether a probe ``hears'' its own packets. DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT-----DRAFT----- Remote Network Monitoring (RMONMIB) Charter Chair(s): Mike Erlinger Network Management Area Director(s) Marshall T. Rose NM-Directorate Consultant: Steven Waldbusser Mailing lists: General Discussion:rmonmib@jarthur.claremont.edu To Subscribe: rmonmib-request@jarthur.claremont.edu Archive: /pub/rmon @jarthur.claremont.edu Description of Working Group: The RMON working group is chartered to prepare a recommendation to the IESG evaluating RFC~1271 (the RMON MIB) with respect to the standards track. The recommendation will document implementation, interoperability, and deployment experience. If this experience suggests that changes should be made to the document, a new draft may be prepared. The recommendation will report one of four outcomes: - that RFC~1271 should be advanced from proposed to draft status, without changes (if no problems are found); - that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace RFC~1271, and be designated a draft standard (if only minor changes are made); - that a draft prepared by the working group, should replace RFC~1271, and be designated a proposed standard (if major changes or feature enhancements are made); or, - that RFC~1271 should be designated as historic (if this technology is problematic). Goals and Milestones: Jul 93 Re-activation of WG, call for discussion of experiences. Sep 93 Classification and evaluation of experiences. Nov 93 Submit recommendation, possibly with new draft, to IESG. Attendees David Arneson arneson@ctron.com Jeff Case case@cs.utk.edu David Engel david@ods.com Michael Erlinger mike@jarthur.claremont.edu Steven Horowitz witz@chipcom.com Jeff Hughes jeff@col.hp.com Carl Madison carl@startek.com Richard McBride richiem@axon.com Keith McCloghrie kzm@hls.com James Reeves jreeves@synoptics.com Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com Jean-Bernard Schmitt jbs@vnet.ibm.com Richard Sweatt rsweatt@synoptics.com Steven Waldbusser waldbusser@andrew.cmu.edu Peter Wilson peter_wilson@3mail.3com.com Dirk Wisse dirk.wisse@dnpap.et.tudelft.nl