Network Management Area Director(s): o Marshall Rose: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Area Summary reported by Marshall Rose/Dover Beach Consulting The Working Groups and BOFs which met in Columbus are as follows: Frame Relay Network MIB BOF (FRNETMIB) The Frame Relay Network MIB BOF met to discuss whether there was interest in a standard set of objects for Frame Relay CNM. Work in this area started in the Frame Relay Forum and is continuing there. There was consensus that a working group should be formed to align with this work and to ultimately produce a MIB in this area. IFIP Electronic Mail Management BOF (EMAILMGT) The EMailMgt BOF met in three sessions with a cumulative participation of thirty-two people. Two documents (Requirements & Model) were reviewed and revised to align terminology and concepts. Work between now and the next meeting in June will be done via email in the EMailMgt mailing list. The next face-to-face meetings are planned for NIST OIW in June (7-11) and Amsterdam IETF in July (12-16). Our objective is to complete and publish our Requirements and Model documents (as Informational RFCs) by the end of the July IETF meeting. Work will then refocus on support of coordinated development of appropriate MO/MIB specifications. In the interim, we will coordinate MO/MIB development efforts with cross-participation in the involved working groups. Mail and Directory Management BOF (MADMAN) The issue of a Charter was discussed. Four documents were suggested for development: (1) a network application MIB model, (2) a MIB module for MTAs, (3) a MI module DSAs, and possibly, (4) a MIB module for message stores. Draft documents describing the first three MIBs were available (although two of them showed up ``just in time''); these documents were reviewed and minor changes were made. Finally there was a long discussion concerning what might go into a Message Store MIB module. Managing ATM with SNMP BOF (ATMMIB) The ATMMIB BOF was held to discuss the need to standardize managed objects for ATM management. The need to standardize managed objects for SONET equipment was also discussed. The BOF was chaired by Kaj Tesink, and featured presentations by Masuma Ahmed on a strawman ATM MIB, Keith McCloghrie on the ILMI of the ATM Forum, and Kaj Tesink on the Internet-Draft for a SONET MIB. The Group recommended unanimously to form a working group (the AToMMIB Working Group) that is chartered to produce MIBs on these topics. Modem Management BOF (MODEMMGT) The Modem Management BOF discussed monitoring and control issues for modem devices and also examined what currently defined MIB modules could be used in support of this. There was also discussion of alignment with other organizations. There was consensus that a working group be chartered to complete this work. SNA Systems Management BOF (SNAMIB) The three SNAMIB BOF sessions were well attended. The primary objective was to assess the community interest in developing standard MIBs for SNMP management of SNA systems, protocols and data links. Strong interest was expressed by all the attendees; in addition, thirteen parties came forward with resource commitments for the work needed. Hence, it was decided that working groups should be formed. Attention was then focused on identifying the SNA systems, protocols and data links that should be worked on at this time. The considerations that were applied to this discussion included resource availability, establishing a track record (with IETF) by taking on (and succeeding in) manageable amount of work and priority of the system/device/data links in question. The Group then identified two prospective working groups, one to focus on the two most important SNA NAU services protocols and the other to focus on the two most important SNA data links. Editors and Chairs were identified for the two working groups. Finally, as an initial milestone, dates were set for vendors to contribute their MIBs. Chassis MIB Working Group (CHASSIS) Progress continues but remains slow. The Group discussed a presentation on generalization of the MIB model as introduced at the previous meeting and partly integrated into the draft. There was fair consensus, but some unsureness of understanding. The new model will be integrated into the draft and Group members must check their chassis implementations against it. A developer reported mostly positive experience implementing the proposed Chassis MIB, but provided a few suggestions. FDDI MIB Working Group (FDDIMIB) The Working Group reviewed the current Internet-Draft. Several minor revisions were made. There was consensus that a new Internet-Draft be posted, briefly reviewed by the mailing list, and then submitted for consideration as a Proposed Standard. There was some interest in a traps document. A strawman will be developed. IEEE 802.3 Hub MIB Working Group (HUBMIB) The HUB MIB Working Group met to discuss minor issues concerning both the MAU MIB Internet-Draft (3/22/92) and the Repeater MIB Proposed Standard (RFC1368). All issues were resolved in principle, with exact working of changes to be done by the editors. The editors will then mail new drafts of both documents to the Working Group mailing list for three weeks review. If no unresolved issues surface during that time, the MAU MIB will be submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard, and the Repeater MIB will be submitted to the IESG for consideration as a Draft Standard. (Note that nine implementors of the Repeater MIB were represented at the meeting, and the Working Group agreed that the implementation and operational experience with the Repeater MIB was more than sufficient to warrant its forwarding to Draft.) Token Ring Remote Monitoring Working Group (TRMON) The TRMON Group met once to identify and resolve the final outstanding technical issues for the draft. There was consensus that the resulting draft should be submitted to the Network Management Directorate for eventual publication as a Proposed Standard. The Group then discussed priorities for future work and where a next meeting might take place. There was no clear resolution on these issues. Finally, in the remaining minutes, a few implementation issues for RFC1271 were discussed. Uninterruptible Power Supply Working Group (UPSMIB) A review of the strawman document published just before the meeting became a discussion of a single counter for line failures, which took most of the meeting before deciding that ``failures'' counted would be vendor specific, as there was no common ground (not speaking electrically). The discussion turned briefly to the model for input lines, with consensus and instructions to the editor. One vendor reproposed the idea of a very small MIB for the simplest UPS, again requesting multiple MIBs. The Chair pointed out that SNMPv2 compliance groups are the answer, and are motivated by exactly such problems. In the interest of moving faster, individuals volunteered to be spokesmen to push progress for each of the MIB groups.