Subject: Proposed disman agenda

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:43:52 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

Here's a proposal for an agenda for the disman WG in Salt Lake
City, Utah.  I'll send an updated one to the secretariat upon
approval of a meeting slot.  is approved.  Please note that
I've "volunteered" some people.  Read on to find out whether
you are one of them!  If you are and you can't attend, I need
to know.

I need to hear from each of the authors / editors whether they
will be be in Salt Lake City.

Also, I'd LOVE to have a minute-taker in advance of the meeting!

 - - - - - - - - 

Distributed Management WG (disman)

Xday, December X at X:X - X:X

===============================

CHAIR:  Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:

1. Administrative matters
   Working group charter is at
   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/disman-charter.html
   1.1 introductions
   1.2 selection of minute-taker
       PLEASE read http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html
       volunteers PRIOR to the meeting greatly appreciated!
   1.3 circulation of sign-up sheet
   1.4 Review of Agenda
   1.5 Allocation of time

2. Status of Current work
   2.1 Script MIB: RFC 3165 published, Proposed Standard.
       (Note also Experimental RFC 3179, NOT a disman WG product)
	Juergen S. & David L. ?
   2.2 Schedule MIB: RFC 2591 updates, to be Proposed Standard,
       <draft-ietf-disman-schedule-mib-v2-04.txt> approved
       by IESG, in RFC editor queue.
	Juergen S. & David L. ?
   2.3 Remote Operations MIB: RFC 2925 (Proposed Standard)
       Soliciting implementation/deployment feedback on RFC 2925.
       Updates in <draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-00.txt>
	Kenneth W. ?
   2.4 Expression MIB: RFC 2982 (Proposed Standard)
       Soliciting implementation/deployment feedback on RFC 2982.
       Updates in <draft-ietf-disman-express-mib-v2-00.txt>
	Ram K.?
   2.5 Event MIB: RFC 2981 (Proposed Standard)
       Soliciting implementation/deployment feedback on RFC 2981.
	Ram K.?
   2.6 Notification/Log MIB: RFC 3014 (Proposed Standard)
       Soliciting implementation/deployment feedback on RFC 3014.
	Ram K.?
   2.7 Alarm work internet-drafts:
         <draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-03.txt>
         <draft-ietf-disman-conditionmib-00.txt>

3. Other relevant work
   3.1 RmonMib RFC 3144 - do we want to generalize this?
   3.3 SnmpConf - persistance discussions?
   3.4 Eos - bulk data retrieval and log / alarm synchronization?
   3.5 DMTF event management in their Interop WG.

4. In-Depth Technical Discussions
   Please see  http://www.ietf.org/instructions/slides.html
   and contact [email-masked] if you need time
   for focused discussion of specific drafts or issues.

    4.1 Active Alarms: <draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-03.txt>
	Sharon C. & Dan R. ?

    4.2 Alarm Report Control and Condition MIB:
         <draft-ietf-disman-conditionmib-00.txt>
	An-Ni H., and Kam L.,  and David P. ?

    4.3 Other issues?

5. Charter updates.
   Please see http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/disman-charter.html
   5.1 completed items
   5.2 changes to target dates
   5.3 Can we go dormant in January?

6. Wrap-up
   6.1 review of action items
   6.2 reminders to minute-takers and presenters
       PLEASE read http://www.ietf.org/instructions/minutes.html
       and http://www.ietf.org/instructions/slides.html, respectively.
   6.3 retrieval of sign-up sheet

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:32:10 +0200

Randy,

Can you please elaborate: what would be the 'generalization' that is
proposed? why in DISMAN?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:06:56 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Subject: RE: Proposed disman agenda
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:32:10 +0200
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
...
> Can you please elaborate: what would be the 'generalization' that is
...
> >    3.1 RmonMib RFC 3144 - do we want to generalize this?
...

There is no specific proposal that I am aware of.

A topic that has come up repeatedly is the development
of "metric objects" which implement "canned" algorithms.
These would be less general-purpose than the expression MIB,
but more general-purpose than the RMON ones.  There are not
any plans that I am aware of to add this to our charter.
It's a recurring interesting discussion, and I'd like to see
whether awareness and need have reached the point where we'd
need to do something about it.  That's it.  I am not at all
inclined to request taking on new items; we need to complete
the ones that are on our plate, which of course need to have
priority for discussion time in Salt Lake City.

If an ARC/COND update does not show up real soon now, we'll
need to decide whether we want to shed that deliverable.