Subject: AToMMIB WG San Diego meeting report

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:08:31 -0800

> AToMMIB WG - 12/11/00
	Reported by Faye Ly

> The working group met once on Monday and the objectives for the meeting
> are:
> 
> 1. Review the status of ATM 2 MIB.
> 2. Review the status of SONET APS MIB.
> 3. Consider Fiber Channel MIB as part of the AToMMIB WG charter.
	4. Review AToMMIB WG charter.

> Minutes:
> 
> 1. Faye Ly presented the latest draft of ATM 2 MIB.  David Allen from
> Nortel raised an issue regarding adding objects to cover ADSL stuff and
> latter on decided to withdraw the proposal.  There is no other issue with
> this draft (14).  This draft will be submitted to IESG by March 2001 or
> sooner.
> 
> 2. Jeff Johnson presented the latest draft of Sonet APS MIB.  
>     Issues: Is 0 a valid value?  Editor to post this to the mailing list.
>     This is the only remaining issue and once resolved, this draft or a
> new draft will be submitted to IESG by March 2001 or sooner.
> 
> 3. Mark Stewart presented the Optical Channel MIB (draft 00).  A few
> issues came up:
> 
>     3.1 Need a liaison between ITU and this WG.  Lakshimi Raman from
> Teraburst.
>     3.2 Need ifTypes from IANA for OCH and OTH.  (Action items for
> Faye/Nathan).
>     3.3 Alarm report control (ARC) needs coordination from the disman
> working group.  If they have a frame work we can use, use it.  If not,
> stick to what we have.  Action for Lakshimi to post a paragraph to the
> disman WG to state the requirement.
>     3.4 Editor needs to double check the intervals/alarm threshold MIB
> objects in the MIB and make sure they match the Perf TC MIB conventions.  
> 
>     The WG agreed to embrace this MIB as part of the atommib charter.
> Action for Faye/Nathan to make this happen with the area director.
> 
> 4. Who has implemented RFC 2558?  People are asking for implementation
> experience and looking for room to add/change the objects in RFC 2558.
> (Action for Faye/Nathan to ask for implementation experience from the
> mailing list).
> 
> 5. Can this WG also include the work for ATM Forum's ATM APS MIB??  Mike
> Sneed (ECI) and Orly Nicklass (RAD) to post to the mailing list the first
> draft.
> 
> 6. Circuit Interface MIB from the Frame Relay working group.  What is this
> working group's reaction to the mib??  (Action: Robert Steinber to post to
> the atommib mailing list again and Faye/Nathan to gather response).
> 
	Slides:

>  <<AToM WG OTN.ppt>>

---

From: "Hanson, Gary" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:50:06 -0800 (PST)

Faye and Kaj,

I took a quick look at the ATM2-MIB draft 14 today.  I immediately 
noticed that huge differences show up between it and draft 13,
apparently because the nroff source and/or compilation forced different
indentations and line breaks.

While that merely leads to a headache in comparing successive drafts,
the bigger problem I see with draft 14 is that many line breaks in the
MIB text have shifted such that some SMIv2 keywords now appear at the
end of the previous clause's line instead the start of a new line.  It
has been my experience in the past that some MIB compilers get real
testy because they were coded with simple-minded expectations that
each clause would start on a new line.  Most of these problems show
up in the conformance section, where MIN-ACCESS or DESCRIPTION clauses
start on the same line on which OBJECT clauses end.

I would recommend taking a serious look at re-formatting the whole draft
document using the same nroff settings as for draft 13.  Not only would
that clear up the possibility of such MIB compilation problems for users,
but it would also minimize the headache when comparing the two drafts to
see what actually changed between the drafts.

I regret not taking a look at this draft sooner; I apologize for the
delay in giving you feedback on this.

Regards,
Gary

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> > [...]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:22:09 -0800

Gary,

Thank you and that was a good catch.  Attached please see the fixed version
of atm 2 mib (draft 15).  If you think this is ok I will post it again to
replace 14.

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Hanson, Gary [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 12:50 PM
To: Faye Ly
Cc: Kaj Tesink; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: AToMMIB WG San Diego meeting report

Faye and Kaj,

Regards,
Gary