[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: o&m sessions, nm division, partial sub-ip

Here are the OPS NM side summaries

  Entity MIB WG
  Netconf WG
  RmonMIB WG

plus some from SUB-IP

  GSMP WG
  TEWG

not all WGs did send summaries(yet)

Thanks,
Bert
--- Begin Message --- 
Entity MIB WG Summary
IETF 57 -- Vienna, Austria -- July 2003
=======================================

The Entity MIB WG currently has two open work items, the Entity
MIB and the Entity State MIB.  During the meeting, we agreed to
finish our formal implementation report for the Entity MIB and
send it to WG last call for DS.  We discussed the remaining open
issues with the Entity State MIB, and another update is expected
to address the issues.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
(Kenneth and I did not have a chance to talk and I am not sure we will 
in time for this report.  So I am sending my view of the status.)

<Kenneth added on 22nd of July>
I think Avri captured what happened in her notes. The technical parts 
and document status will be in the final minutes.   
Btw, I will be on vacation on the next 2-3 weeks and expect  to be back 
August 11.
</Kenneth added on 22nd of July>

As the interested, or even casual observer could see, only about 4 
people talked.  Then again the meeting was held in a rather large room 
where the attendance was very sparse.

As an editor looking for answers, I must admit I found the meeting 
unsatisfactory.  As a co-chair, I admit failure at getting the core 
group of about 10 (not all came to the meeting) to participate vocally 
on the list.  I therefore do think that a carefully worded note as Bert 
has suggested is perhaps a good way to go.

<Bert has now posted that to WG list>
GSMP WG participants/listeners,

  I am seriously worried about the very low level of 
  participation, both in the face-to-face meeting(s) and 
  on the WG mailing list.

  Since I took over this WG at the IETF in March this year, I have 
  not seen enough participation of WG members/participants. 
 
  For me (and I assume for everyone who looks at the status of this
  WG) that seems to indicate:

  - There is no wide interest in the current WG charter work-items.
  - So it seems as if a few people are working in private.
  - Work has not been progressing at all according to schedule.

  I hear from WG chair(s) that people are approaching them in private
  emails about this work. Well, that is all great, but that is NOT
  how we work in IETF. We participate on the mailing list, so that 
  everyone can see each others input/comments/concerns etc.
  We also offer help to write documents and to review documents and
  to feedback to the list our findings during such review.

  Pls act and make this a real WG.

Thanks,
Bert 
</Bert has now posted that to WG list>

As a side note, there was an editing session on Thursday morning, at 
which 7 people,
myself included, sat and had lively discussions on issues such a 
layering in ports, the way to handle protection and restoration and 
whether burst timers were labels or something else.  The few agreements 
we came to will be posted on the list, and the participants have 
promised to discuss the still open issues on the list.  I did tell them 
about the AD's coming email first warning and so the AD's follow-up 
will me necessary to allow people to know I wasn't just bluffing.

There is a very interesting coming together of ITU-T and IETF 
methodologies in these discussions, so despite this being a smallish 
group, I do believe the discussions have relevance for how we consider 
control interactions with forwarding in the IETF.

a.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

The NETCONF WG met at the Vienna IETF to discuss work in progress.
There were 3 individual submissions presented to the WG for 
consideration.  The XMLCONF Protocol was updated to include some
improvements previously discussed on the mailing list.  The NETCONF
Interface proposal presented some issues that the authors believe
are not adequately addressed in the XMLCONF WG.  The authors of
both drafts met after the WG meeting and most differences have
already been resolved.   The SOAP Binding for NETCONF document
proposes a transport mapping for the NETCONF protocol.

The WG seems to be converging on an appropriate set of
protocol operations.  There is also agreement that selecting
a single "mandatory to implement" transport mapping is
important.  However, there is not any clear consensus 
at this time which mapping to chose for this purpose.
There seems to be agreement that the list of choices
is BEEP, SOAP, and SSH.  

The WG will hold an interim meeting in early September.
The location will either be Sunnyvale, CA, USA, or
Ottowa, Canada.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
We have 3 areas of activity (well 4, I guess)

1.  DSTE.  Requirements is almost RFC.  Protocol specification is ready to
go to WG last call too, however discussions on how to due DSTE over
bundled links has revealed a general problem of the need to generalize
(across the board) that where we had refered to preemption priority (p),
this should really just be thought of as something general like a TE
Class.  So p -> TE Class := [Class Type, p].  This needs to be addressed
somehow.  The bandwidth models are also getting close to WG last call, and
will be put forward as expiremental.

2.  Multi-area and Multi-AS TE requirements.  The requirements work is
progressing well.  Inter-AS requirements have been captured in a WG
document, and they should be fairly finalized by next meeting (though one
of the editors told me the objective is w/in 9 months! I think we can pull
that in :).  I put forward a draft to make sure that inter-area
requirements are also covered.  It covers inter-as as well, but it is
likely that that information will be dropped and picked up in the inter-as
draft, or the two drafts will merge (less likely).

3.  TE Measurements, this has been updated, so we shall see if it's ready
for the IESG or the bit bucket.

4.  TE-MIB  (if you call that activity :)

So in general, we are closing in on all of our objectives.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
The RMONMIB WG met in Vienna and discussed the work in progress.
Several documents (APM-MIB, TPM-MIB, SSPM-MIB) have been updated
and are very close to being ready for IESG Last Call.  An update
for the RMON-2 MIB is needed (to advance to DS) which should be 
done soon. The SMON-MIB is ready to advance to DS except it is
waiting on the RMON-2 draft.  New versions of the RAQMON drafts
were discussed.  Some refinements are needed, and concerns about
overlap with RTCP need to be resolved.  A proposal for new work
to add RMON PI macros for ipv6 and MPLS was presented.  If the
work is accepted, it will be a very limited update to the RMON
PI Reference and be considered an extension to that work.


Andy
--- End Message ---