Subject: [Entmib] Updated Agenda

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:58:42 -0400

NOTE:  The ipfc working group has been cc:ed because of the 
        relationship to their work.

I have updated the agenda for the Entity MIB WG meeting to include 
several issues raised during the Fibre Channel MIB review.  The new 
agenda is attached, along with a reading list for meeting attendees.

Would anyone like to present on these (or other) topics?  If so, 
please let me know what you would like to present and approximately 
how long you will need.

IMPORTANT:
To date we have NO implementation reports for RFC 2737.  We know 
that this MIB has been implemented by several groups.  If you are an 
implementor, PLEASE step forward and complete an implementation 
checklist before the IETF meeting.  WE CANNOT MOVE TO DRAFT STANDARD 
WITHOUT DOCUMENTED IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE!

Thanks,
Margaret

Entity MIB WG (entmib)

Tuesday, August 07 at 1415-1515 
=================================

CHAIRS: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:
Introduction and Agenda Bashing (5 min) 

Implementation and Deployment Experience (10 min) 
   - Review current RFC 2737 implementation reports
   - Review current RFC 2737 deployment experience
   - Are any changes, additions or deletions indicated
         by our implementation and deployment experience?

Issues Raised during Fibre Channel Review (30 min)
   - Are any additional objects (or changes to existing
     objects) needed to meet the needs of the FC MIB?
   - Should we expand our charter to write a sensor MIB?
       - Is there sufficient interest in doing this work 
         within the Entity MIB WG?
       - Volunteers to write an internet draft?

Moving RFC 2737 to Draft Standard (15 min) 
   - Do we need any changes based on earlier discussions?
   - Is further implementation or deployment experience 
     needed? If so, in what areas? 
   - Are we ready for WG last call?

READING LIST
============

RFC 2737:  Entity MIB (Version 2)

draft-ietf-entmib-impl-check-00.txt:  Entity MIB Implementation
   Checklist

draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt: Fibre Channel Management 
   Framework Integration MIB

Entity MIB WG mail dated 28-Jun-01 entitled "[Entmib] Questions 
   regarding draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt" (included 
   below for the convenience)

-----------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:28:01 -0400 
To: [email-masked] 
From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> 
Cc: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>, Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>, 
[email-masked] 
Subject: [Entmib] Questions regarding draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt 

Hi All,

As a WG, we need to respond to some questions that arose during a 
review of the Fibre Channel MIB:

draft-ietf-ipfc-fcmgmt-int-mib-06.txt 

This MIB implements some objects that may overlap functions of 
the Entity MIB. It also contains some objects that might be better 
represented in a generic form in a separate MIB (i.e. a Sensor MIB). 
So, there are basically two questions that we need to consider.

Keith McCloghrie wrote: 
 > > To take one example, they have a Sensor Table in their MIB, which is 
 > > obviously not FC-specific. What would you say to extending the 
 > > Entity MIB WG charter to include the definition of data on Sensors ?

Bert asked that I bring this to the Entity MIB mailing list...

Do we think that this would be a good idea? Are we willing 
to take on this work? Or do we think it would best be handled by 
a separate working group?

According to Keith, Cisco has a sensor MIB that we might be able to use 
as a model:
 > > ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ftp/pub/mibs/v2/CISCO-ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB.my 

We don't have Cisco's permission to use this material, but perhaps we 
could obtain their permission?

Also, there is an open issue of whether some of the objects in the FC 
MIB could be covered by the Entity MIB -- particularly those objects 
that represent multiple Fibre Channel cards in a device.

Keith McCloghrie writes: 
 > > > > But there's nothing unique to Fibre Channel in your statement, and 
 > > > > therefore you must NOT try to solve it in a Fibre Channel-specific MIB. 
 > > > > There are lots of SNMP-managed devices that have multiple blades or 
 > > > > are a series of boxes. See for example, the "usage examples" in 
 > > > > section 4 of the Entity MIB (RFC 2737). 
[...] 
 > > > > > > c. these objects are either already in the ENTITY MIB (RFC 2737) or 
 > > > > > > belong in an extension to the ENTITY MIB: 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumber 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumPorts 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumLinks 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitNumRevs 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitModuleId 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsTable 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsIndex 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsRevision 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitRevsDescription 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortSerialNo 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortRevision 
 > > > > > > fcConnUnitPortVendor 

However, Steven Blumenau responded: 
 > > > > > SMB> I did not believe they are covered. 

Any opinions on whether we cover the functionality described for the FC MIB?
Does RFC 2737 require any extensions to appropriately manage multiple FC cards 
in a device? If so, this is clearly something that we should discuss before 
moving to draft standard.

Steven, would you please provide details? What is missing from the Entity 
MIB that you need to manage FC cards in a chassis?

Thanks, 
Margaret

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:22:13 -0700

>         relationship to their work.

I am preparing an Entity MIB implementation report for cisco,
which will be done before the IETF.

I am somewhat perplexed by the agenda. The WG is chartered
to advance 2737, and we're going to spend all of 10 minutes
on deployment experience plus a 15 minute in-depth discussion
of any potential changes or additions to the MIB?

Please get a longer timeslot or move the FC MIB discussion to the IPFC meeting.

thanks,
Andy

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:47:52 -0400

Hi Andy,

>of any potential changes or additions to the MIB?

I agree that moving RFC 2737 to draft standard is our top priority.  

As of today, though, we don't have any implementation reports, and 
you are the only person who has indicated that you plan to write one.

Do you expect that your report will bring up issues that will 
require more than 10 minutes to discuss?  If so, how long do you
think that you will need?

Does anyone else expect to have an implementation report ready for
the meeting?  If so, please send me a not estimating how much time
you will need to discuss your report.

If we get a number of implementation reports before the meeting, 
and if those reports point out any open issues, I will reprioritize
the agenda to spend additional time on those issues.

Keith McCloghrie is the only person who has requested time
during the meeting (He will be presenting via proxies).  His
presentation concerns the FC issues and a proposal for the Sensor
MIB.

>Please get a longer timeslot or move the FC MIB discussion to the IPFC meeting.

I will ask if it is possible to get a longer timeslot.

Although some issues arose when discussing the FC MIB, they are
primarily issues for the Entity MIB WG.  So, I think that it would be
inappropriate to move this discussion to the IPFC meeting.

The two issues that we plan to discuss are:

         - Does the FC MIB demonstrate any weaknesses or omissions
                 in RFC 2737.  

         - Should the entmib WG charter be expanded to include
                 a sensor MIB?

These are both clearly Entity MIB WG issues.  The first may relate
to whether RFC 2737 is ready to move to draft standard.  The
second is a separate issue, but should clearly be discussed by
this group.

Margaret

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:14:06 -0700

HI,

RiverStone is planning to send in  an implementation report, and
I will send in an implementation report for where I previously worked.

There are many things to say about the MIB module. And there are
many things that need be added.

What experience do you have with the MIB module?

Regards,
/david t. perkins

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:26:01 -0400

Hi David,

I have read the MIB, and we are starting work on an implementation
at Wind River for our integrated routing/switching products.  We
haven't gotten very far along yet, though, as this is not really
a strategic project for us.

I've asked to be re-scheduled for a two hour slot.  I'll let 
everyone know when I receive an answer.

How long do you think you will need to present your reports?

Do you think that there will be a lively discussion?  Noone has
posted anything to the mailing list, despite my requests. So, I 
wasn't under the impression that there weren't many interested folks.
Am I sadly mistaken?

This is my first attempt as a WG chair, so I'm not sure how to
predict the discussion lengths for various topics.  Do you have
any suggestions?

Thanks,
Margaret