CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Deirdre Kostick/Bellcore Minutes of the Frame Relay Service MIB BOF (FRNETMIB) The purpose of the Frame Relay Service MIB BOF was to determine if there was interest in writing a standard Frame Relay Network MIB and to determine if the MIB should be developed in the IETF. Tracy Cox presented the purpose of the BOF, the proposed scope of the MIB, and discussed the relation to the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee activities. The proposed MIB has the following scope/features: o The MIB will be an SNMPv1 MIB. o It will contain read-only objects. o It is intended for use by end-customers (versus service providers) to manage their portion of a Frame Relay network. o It is intended to support fault detection, performance monitoring, and configuration for Frame Relay interfaces. o It is NOT intended to be a switch MIB, and will NOT include managed objects for switching elements and related internal aspects of the network supporting Frame Relay. Tracy discussed the relation with the existing Frame Relay DTE MIB (RFC1315). Based on discussion with RFC1315 authors and others, Tracy determined that the Frame Relay DTE MIB was not sufficient to manage the Frame Relay interface from the network perspective. For example, a Frame Relay Network MIB would need bi-directional information on Frame Relay parameters (CIR, Be, Bc), and an end-to-end view of the network, neither of which are supported in RFC1315. The Frame Relay Network MIB would not include managed objects for the physical layer. Existing physical layer MIBs (e.g., DS1 and DS3) would be used. There was agreement with the scope of the MIB. The BOF attendees also agreed that: a) there was interest in writing a standard MIB, and b) that the IETF was the appropriate body for the development of standard MIBs. There was discussion on the relationship of the efforts in the Frame Relay Forum and the proposed ATMMIB Working Group. These issues were discussed at length during George Mouradian's presentation. 1 George presented ideas on service management -- Architecture Principles for Service MIBs. George indicated that standards for service management are necessary, and that Frame Relay and ATM services are good candidates for standardized MIBs. Both the user and the vendor communities benefit. George raised questions and issues related to the proliferation of MIBs and of different groups working on the same management issues. George indicated that he felt it was premature to start a separate effort in the IETF and that it was necessary to give the Frame Relay Forum more time to complete their efforts. There was lively discussion on this topic. Caralyn Brown indicated that the intent was not to discontinue the work in the Frame Relay Forum, rather it was to follow the process used for development of RFC1294. Andy Malis indicated that for RFC1294 the work in the IETF was brought into the Frame Relay Forum, and that there were ongoing efforts to keep the Frame Relay Forum informed of the IETF work and to gain their input and consensus. Both Caralyn Brown and Andy Malis were involved in this coordination effort. Ken Rodemann indicated that he agreed that it was unwise to assume that the IETF would ``rubber-stamp'' a MIB brought in from an outside group. However, he felt that it would be wiser to let the work continue in the Frame Relay Forum before bringing it into the IETF. Doug Kay supported continuing the work in the Frame Relay Forum since there was expertise on Frame Relay; however, Doug also indicated that he felt that the IETF offered the network management and SNMP-related expertise that would be necessary to develop a quality MIB. Doug indicated that he would feel comfortable if it was clear that the Frame Relay Forum was responsible for defining the Managed Objects and that the IETF Group would be responsible for ``mibification''. There was discussion on the timing of the establishment of the proposed Working Group and the process for coordination with the Frame Relay Forum work. Deirdre Kostick suggested that the Forum continue to work on the proposed list of managed objects via email and at their June meeting, develop a consensus on the set of objects. This set of objects would be used by the proposed IETF Working Group to begin MIB definition at the July IETF meeting. James Watt suggested that an interim meeting should be held in conjunction with the June Frame Relay Forum meeting. Results of the BOF o There is interest in writing a Frame Relay Network Service MIB. The scope of the MIB is consistent with the scope identified during Tracy Cox's presentation. That is, the MIB will be an SNMPv1 MIB intended to support end-customer network management for their Frame Relay interfaces. It is not intended to be a switching system MIB. o There is agreement that a working group should be created to develop the Frame Relay Network Service MIB. 2 o The first meeting (assuming approval of the Working Group by the yet-to-be-named Network Management Area Director) will be June 28-30 with the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee in Chicago. Meeting logistics will be posted on the mailing list. o The Frame Relay Network Service MIB will be based on the managed objects identified by the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee. There will be ongoing coordination efforts between the two groups. o The proposed schedule for deliverables from the Working Group are indicated below in the proposed Charter. o There will be coordination with the proposed ATMMIB Working Group to insure that common elements are consistently modeled. Proposed Charter of Working Group o Tracy Cox will Chair the Group. o Messages for Group discussion can be sent to frftc@nsco.network.com. Subscription requests for the discussion list should be sent to frftc-request@nsco.network.com. o To write a standard Frame Relay Network Service MIB based on the set of managed objects identified by the Frame Relay Forum Technical Committee. Close coordination with the Frame Relay Forum is essential. Once chartered, this Working Group will also coordinate their efforts with the proposed ATMMIB Working Group. o The goals of the Group are to complete the first draft of an Internet-Draft by July of 1993 and to submit the final draft of the document for approval as an RFC by November of 1993. Attendees Masuma Ahmed mxa@sabre.bellcore.com Rich Bowen rkb@ralvm11.vnet.ibm.com Caralyn Brown cbrown@wellfleet.com Theodore Brunner tob@thumper.bellcore.com John Chang changj@ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com Anthony Chow chow_a@wwtc.timeplex.com Tracy Cox tacox@sabre.bellcore.com Manuel Diaz diaz@davidsys.com Ken Hayward Ken.Hayward@bnr.ca Don Hofacker hofacker@dtedi.hq.aelc.af.mil Doug Kay doub.kay@sprintintl.sprint.com Kenneth Key key@cs.utk.edu Zbigniew Kielczewski zbig@eicon.qc.ca 3 Moshe Kochinski moshek@FibHaifa.com Deirdre Kostick dck2@sabre.bellcore.com Patrick Leung patrickl@eicon.qc.ca Andrew Malis malis_a@timeplex.com Matthew Morrisey morrisey@wpsp01.hq.aflc.af.mil George Mouradian gvm@arch3.att.com Rina Nathaniel rina!rnd!rndi@uunet.uu.net Louise Reingold l.reingold@sprint.sprint.com Bradley Rhoades bdrhoades@mail.mmmg.com Kenneth Rodemann krr@qsun.att.com Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Kaj Tesink kaj@cc.bellcore.com James Watt james@newbridge.com Kiho Yum kxy@nsd.3com.com 4