Subject: AToM MIB WG Meeting Summary

From: "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:42:20 -0400

Dear all,

Attached is a summary of the AToM MIB WG in the 57-IETF meeting, Vienna.
The summary is formuated according to the instruction from the Area Directors.
A detail meeting minute will be posted later on.

Regards,
Kam
 <<57-IETF_atommib_summaries.txt>>

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:29:40 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam) wrote:
> Attached is a summary of the AToM MIB WG in the 57-IETF meeting,
> Vienna. The summary is formuated according to the instruction
> from the Area Directors. A detail meeting minute will be posted
> later on.

Thanks to Kam for posting this summary.  I do have some comments
regarding to of the proposed milestone updates.

> Oct 03: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2514-2515 to the IESG 
>         for consideration of standards track advancement as
>         appropriate
>
>         (Note: Pending on implementation feedback, objects that do
>         not have sufficient implementations will be indicated as 
>         deprecated objects in the advanced documents.) 

First, the recently-approved document draft-ietf-atommib-atm2-19.txt
(which contains the ATM2-MIB) depends normatively on RFC 2514 (which
contains the ATM-TC-MIB) and when published will be the only IETF
standards-track specification that uses the following TCs in that
document:  AtmSigDescrParamIndex, AtmInterfaceType, and
AtmIlmiNetworkPrefix.  In addition, it makes use of the following
TCs in RFC 2514 that are also used in the ATM-MIB:  AtmAddr,
AtmVcIdentifier, AtmVpIdentifier, and AtmTrafficDescrParamIndex.  
In my opinion, it would be premature to deprecate any of those seven
TCs;  we should at least wait until it is time to collect
implementation reports for the ATM2-MIB.  That is some time away, as
it can't be advanced to Draft Standard until six months after
publication as a Proposed Standard.

Second, several of the ATM Forum MIB modules import things from the
ATM-TC-MIB (RFC 2514) and the ATM-MIB (RFC 2515), and so any
revision we make could have impact there.  It would probably be a
good idea to attempt to solicit implementation feedback from ATM
Forum members before any decision is made to deprecate unimplemented
objects and TCs.

> Jan 04: Submit any needed revisions of RFC2512-2513 to the IESG
>         for consideration of standards track advancement as
>         appropriate 
>        
>         (Note: Pending on implementation feedback. If no
>         implementation report by 10/2003, consider moving the
>         document to historical.)

Again, it is suggested that implementation feedback from ATM Forum
members be solicited for these documents.  As far as I can tell,
none of the ATM Forum MIB modules actually depends on any of these
modules;  but it would not hurt to ask if other ATM Forum specs do.

Regards,

Mike Heard