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          [email protected]
Farokh Deboo             [email protected]
Nadya El-Afandi          [email protected]
Stanley Froyd            [email protected]
Charles Hedrick          [email protected]
Steven Hunter            [email protected]
David Perkins            [email protected]
Jonathan Saperia         saperia%[email protected]
Steve Willis             [email protected]



                                  2

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.