Subject: [manet] REPORT-MIB --- update? (UNCLASSIFIED)

From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:23:05 +0000

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

To all:

I did not want to comment on the questions regarding the status of the REPORT-MIB definition until I had pretty much wrapped up the SMF-MIB (which I believe is close to publication).

With the permission of the working group and the chairs, I would like to proceed with the design and development of the REPORT-MIB?

The hold up over the last year has been the appropriate architecture for the REPORT-MIB.  It was initially designed following RMON II tables.  Last year Andy suggested (based upon conversations with others involved with the DISMAN WG years ago) that we should base the REPORT-MIB on the DISMAN base of MIBs.  I believe I now know how to accomplish this and I would like to rewrite the report-mib-04 within the context of the DISMAN MIBs, e.g., EVENT-MIB, EXPRESSION-MIB, etc.

So if this is OK with the group, I need a few weeks to work up the 04 version of the REPORT-MIB draft and post by the end of September.

Thanks, Bob

US Army CERDEC
QUEST Program, S&TCD
APG, MD

(c) 443.910.4420
(o) 443.395.8744
[email-masked]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:15:05 +0200

Hi Bob,

sounds good to me. Please proceed.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 23:16:47 +0200

Hi Robert,

I am trying to track the discussions for this draft (not easy to track them
in IETF WG). However, I want to ask about the reason for changing draft
direction. There were some questions not answered/discussed by WG in
IETF meeting 87. Comments below,

On Tuesday, September 2, 2014, Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US) wrote:

> I did not want to comment on the questions regarding the status of the
> REPORT-MIB definition until I had pretty much wrapped up the SMF-MIB (which
> I believe is close to publication).

Do you mean Thomas's questions [2, 3]?

> With the permission of the working group and the chairs, I would like to
> proceed with the design and development of the REPORT-MIB?

I support that.

>
> The hold up over the last year has been the appropriate architecture for
> the REPORT-MIB.  It was initially designed following RMON II tables.  Last
> year Andy suggested (based upon conversations with others involved with the
> DISMAN WG years ago) that we should base the REPORT-MIB on the DISMAN base
> of MIBs.

Why was that suggestion appropriate? I tried to find the suggestion input
in IETF, but failed to find Andy's input. What is wrong with it based
on RMON?

>  I believe I now know how to accomplish this and I would like to rewrite
> the report-mib-04 within the context of the DISMAN MIBs, e.g., EVENT-MIB,
> EXPRESSION-MIB, etc.

I prefer we discuss it first because report-mob-03 is WG doc and not sure
of the answers of the questions you referred to (you may mean [1, 2,
3]). So I Disagree to change our work context before a reason discussion (I
may missed the discussion but still looking for it). I hope we start with
one new version -04 with only additions then we discuss changes in next
versions.

>
> So if this is OK with the group, I need a few weeks to work up the 04
> version of the REPORT-MIB draft and post by the end of September.

IMHO It is ok to add context not change/delete previous context if we have
not discussed.

Thanks for your input.
AB

[1]. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15963.html

[2]. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16503.html

[3]. Minutes of IETF 87 MANET WG meeting, (chair section, MANET management
section).