CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_

Reported by Barbara Sterling/McDATA

Minutes of the SNA Systems Management BOF (SNAMIB)

The meeting opened with an introduction of all attendees.  A roster, as
well as an Interest Grid, was circulated.  Baktha Muralidharan went over
the Agenda which was then passed without dissent.  The criteria for
forming a working group for a MIB were discussed.  Basically at least
three or more people (one Chair, one author, one editor) who are willing
to participate actively are needed before a working group can be formed.
In addition, a working group's charter preferably should include
milestone dates.

A poll was taken to show interests in the various areas of SNA. The
following is the result.

PU 2.0:                   5

PU 2.1:                   7

PU 4:                     1

PU 5:                     1

APPN (End Node and Network Node):    2

APPC:                     <a lot>

SDLC:                     5

LLC-2:                    4

QLLC:                     1

Channel-attached:         3

Data Link Switching:      4

APPI:                     1



Note:  This poll only reflects the interests of the attendees.  It was
pointed out that for some areas, such as APPI, there may be other
vendors who are interested but not present.

The following issues were brought up during the meeting:

                                  1





  o How well will the MIBs reflect the client's point of view?

  o The relationship between SNMP and NetView:

     -  How do the two relate to each other:  does it mean sending SNMP
        information to NetView?
     -  What is the scope of management by each protocol?

  o Splitting the host management aspect from PU 5.  Some felt that
    there are wider interests in managing SNA topology network than SNA
    hosts.

  o Placement of related areas into one or separate MIBs.  For example,
    should APPN End Node be a separate MIB from the APPN Network Node?
    Should PU 2.1 belong to the APPN MIB (since it describes LEN) or to
    the PU MIBs (with PU 2.0)?  It was decided to defer detailed MIB
    organization discussion until later.


Marshall Rose pointed out the differences between proprietary and
standard MIBs.  A standard MIB should never contain vendor-specific
details but should be a core set of information common to all.  In
addition, a standard MIB loses meaning if it is not widely adopted and
implemented by the community.

Session Two

The meeting was opened by Baktha, who recapped session one.  Baktha
proposed a working group structure composed of four distinct working
groups, based upon the discussions of session one:


WG1:     PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN End Node, APPN Network Node, APPI
WG2:     SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC
WG3:     APPC, LUs
WG4:     Data Link Switching (DLSw)


A series of discussions ensued, involving:


  o The number of working groups needed or desired -- issues included:

     -  There is a need for overall architectural control to ensure all
        MIBs complement each other.
     -  Considerable overlap of participation is expected if there are
        multiple working groups.

                                  2





  -  How to minimize the size and number of mailing lists, including
     having one mailing list even if multiple working groups are
     formed.
  -  To ensure communication between multiple working groups, each
     working group would have other working groups review and
     sign-off documents prior to publishing them.
  -  Relevance of number of vendors/users present at BOF versus
     other interested vendors/users in determining priority of
     certain MIB structures.
  -  Moving DLSw to WG2.
  -  Moving PUT2.0 to WG3.
  -  LUs topic should include LU types 0,1,2,3,4,6.2,7


o IBM indicated that, in approximately one month, it intends to
 submit its current APPN MIB as a Draft Standard in order to aid
 network management vendors in preparing to support IBM's APPN
 functions for the 6611 router.  Discussion followed, including:

  -  Is there a real need to propose this MIB as a standard now,
     assuming a working group is to be formed that addresses this
     issue?
  -  Should the APPN MIB be published as an informational draft
     instead?
  -  The IESG and/or IAB is likely to not accept IBM's submission as
     a Draft Standard and will refer the matter to the established
     working group.
  -  IBM also has an APPC MIB that they plan to submit to the IETF
     in the future.


o The Group developed consensus in these areas:

  -  There will be two working groups:
      * WG1 -- Logical SNA Protocols (includes PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN
        EN, APPN NN, APPI, APPC, all LUs).
      * WG2 -- Data Link Layer (includes SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC,
        DLSw).  The Charter of the group will be to examine the
        issues relating to and publish the MIBs required to enable
        management of logical SNA protocols and their data link
        layers by SNMP, defining capabilities that are similar to
        those provided to IBM's NetView (R) network management
        product.


o Milestones for this Group include:

                               3





     -  The working groups will publish a draft document to the mailing
        list identifying how many MIBs are to be defined within the
        scope of this effort.  This draft will be published within two
        months of the formation of the working groups.
     -  During July 1993, first drafts of the MIBs will be reviewed by
        the mailing list.
     -  The working groups will meet at the July 1993 IETF meeting.
     -  One mailing list will be defined that will include both working
        groups.


A suggestion was made that the Chair post a ``request for
participation'' for these working groups to the IETF mailing list,
encouraging both vendors and users to participate.

Discussions relating to staffing the two working groups were deferred to
BOF Session Three.

Session Three

It was decided to make the Charters more specific and focused than had
previously been decided.  Proposed WG1 will work on MIBs for PUs 2 and
2.1 and LUs 1,2 and 3.  Proposed WG2 will work on MIBs for SDLC and
LLC-2 data link protocols.  The Charters for these first two groups are
not meant to preclude the creation of future working groups to develop
``SNA MIBs'' in other areas of common interest.

It was mentioned that the MIB for LLC-2 will need to be coordinated with
the similar IEEE MIB definition effort.

Several individuals volunteered to edit and/or author the documents and
other volunteered to chair the working groups.

  o Bill Kelly.  Editor Working Group 1 (PU2, PU2.1 and LUs 1,2,3)

  o Shannon Nix and Wayne Clark.  Editors Working Group 2 (LLC-2 and
    SDLC)

  o Baktha Muralidharan, Jeff Hilgeman and Zbigniew Kielczewski.
    Chairs (Area Director to make choices).

  o Baktha Muralidharan, Zbigniew Kielczewski, Bill Kwan and Kitty
    Shih.  Authors.  PUs 2.0/2.1

  o Kitty Shih and Zbigniew Kielczewski.  LUs



                                  4





  o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, Bill Kwan, and Rina Nathaniel.  SDLC

  o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, and Wayne Clark.  LLC-2


Action Items


  o Baktha Muralidharan and Deirdre Kostick are to work on appropriate
    wording of the charters and distribute drafts to the mailing list.

  o Authors are to post their MIBs for WG's 1 and 2 by April 30th.


Attendees

Michael Allen            [email protected]
David Arneson            [email protected]
David Battle             [email protected]
Mahesh Bhatia            [email protected]
Fred Bohle               [email protected]
Michael Bowman           [email protected]
Jeff Case                [email protected]
Jia-bing Cheng           [email protected]
Anthony Chow             [email protected]
Wayne Clark              [email protected]
Tracy Cox                [email protected]
Wayne Cullen             [email protected]
Kishan Dudkikar          [email protected]
Eric Fleischman          [email protected]
Cleve Graves             [email protected]
Jeff Hilgeman            [email protected]
Bill Kelly               [email protected]
Mark Kepke               [email protected]
Kenneth Key              [email protected]
Zbigniew Kielczewski     [email protected]
Moshe Kochinski          [email protected]
Deirdre Kostick          [email protected]
William Kwan             [email protected]
Patrick Leung            [email protected]
William McKenzie         [email protected]
Robert Moskowitz         [email protected]
Satinder Mundra          [email protected]
Baktha Muralidharan      [email protected]
Rina Nathaniel           [email protected]
Tom Nisbet               [email protected]
Shannon Nix              [email protected]
Bill Norton              [email protected]
Eric Olinger             [email protected]
Jon Penner               [email protected]
David Perkins            [email protected]
Thomas Pusateri          [email protected]

                                  5





Owen Reddecliffe         owen%[email protected]
Dan Romascanu            [email protected]
Marshall Rose            [email protected]
Rick Royston             [email protected]
Joseph Rumolo            attmail!jrumolo
Chris Shaw               [email protected]
Kitty Shih               [email protected]
Timon Sloane             [email protected]
Stuart Stanley           [email protected]
Barbara Sterling         [email protected]
Stephen Tsun             [email protected]
Steven Waldbusser        [email protected]
James Watt               [email protected]
Kiho Yum                 [email protected]



                                  6

You are viewing proxied material from ftp.icm.edu.pl. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.