CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Barbara Sterling/McDATA Minutes of the SNA Systems Management BOF (SNAMIB) The meeting opened with an introduction of all attendees. A roster, as well as an Interest Grid, was circulated. Baktha Muralidharan went over the Agenda which was then passed without dissent. The criteria for forming a working group for a MIB were discussed. Basically at least three or more people (one Chair, one author, one editor) who are willing to participate actively are needed before a working group can be formed. In addition, a working group's charter preferably should include milestone dates. A poll was taken to show interests in the various areas of SNA. The following is the result. PU 2.0: 5 PU 2.1: 7 PU 4: 1 PU 5: 1 APPN (End Node and Network Node): 2 APPC: SDLC: 5 LLC-2: 4 QLLC: 1 Channel-attached: 3 Data Link Switching: 4 APPI: 1 Note: This poll only reflects the interests of the attendees. It was pointed out that for some areas, such as APPI, there may be other vendors who are interested but not present. The following issues were brought up during the meeting: 1 o How well will the MIBs reflect the client's point of view? o The relationship between SNMP and NetView: - How do the two relate to each other: does it mean sending SNMP information to NetView? - What is the scope of management by each protocol? o Splitting the host management aspect from PU 5. Some felt that there are wider interests in managing SNA topology network than SNA hosts. o Placement of related areas into one or separate MIBs. For example, should APPN End Node be a separate MIB from the APPN Network Node? Should PU 2.1 belong to the APPN MIB (since it describes LEN) or to the PU MIBs (with PU 2.0)? It was decided to defer detailed MIB organization discussion until later. Marshall Rose pointed out the differences between proprietary and standard MIBs. A standard MIB should never contain vendor-specific details but should be a core set of information common to all. In addition, a standard MIB loses meaning if it is not widely adopted and implemented by the community. Session Two The meeting was opened by Baktha, who recapped session one. Baktha proposed a working group structure composed of four distinct working groups, based upon the discussions of session one: WG1: PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN End Node, APPN Network Node, APPI WG2: SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC WG3: APPC, LUs WG4: Data Link Switching (DLSw) A series of discussions ensued, involving: o The number of working groups needed or desired -- issues included: - There is a need for overall architectural control to ensure all MIBs complement each other. - Considerable overlap of participation is expected if there are multiple working groups. 2 - How to minimize the size and number of mailing lists, including having one mailing list even if multiple working groups are formed. - To ensure communication between multiple working groups, each working group would have other working groups review and sign-off documents prior to publishing them. - Relevance of number of vendors/users present at BOF versus other interested vendors/users in determining priority of certain MIB structures. - Moving DLSw to WG2. - Moving PUT2.0 to WG3. - LUs topic should include LU types 0,1,2,3,4,6.2,7 o IBM indicated that, in approximately one month, it intends to submit its current APPN MIB as a Draft Standard in order to aid network management vendors in preparing to support IBM's APPN functions for the 6611 router. Discussion followed, including: - Is there a real need to propose this MIB as a standard now, assuming a working group is to be formed that addresses this issue? - Should the APPN MIB be published as an informational draft instead? - The IESG and/or IAB is likely to not accept IBM's submission as a Draft Standard and will refer the matter to the established working group. - IBM also has an APPC MIB that they plan to submit to the IETF in the future. o The Group developed consensus in these areas: - There will be two working groups: * WG1 -- Logical SNA Protocols (includes PUT2.0, PUT2.1, APPN EN, APPN NN, APPI, APPC, all LUs). * WG2 -- Data Link Layer (includes SDLC, LLC-2, Channel, QLLC, DLSw). The Charter of the group will be to examine the issues relating to and publish the MIBs required to enable management of logical SNA protocols and their data link layers by SNMP, defining capabilities that are similar to those provided to IBM's NetView (R) network management product. o Milestones for this Group include: 3 - The working groups will publish a draft document to the mailing list identifying how many MIBs are to be defined within the scope of this effort. This draft will be published within two months of the formation of the working groups. - During July 1993, first drafts of the MIBs will be reviewed by the mailing list. - The working groups will meet at the July 1993 IETF meeting. - One mailing list will be defined that will include both working groups. A suggestion was made that the Chair post a ``request for participation'' for these working groups to the IETF mailing list, encouraging both vendors and users to participate. Discussions relating to staffing the two working groups were deferred to BOF Session Three. Session Three It was decided to make the Charters more specific and focused than had previously been decided. Proposed WG1 will work on MIBs for PUs 2 and 2.1 and LUs 1,2 and 3. Proposed WG2 will work on MIBs for SDLC and LLC-2 data link protocols. The Charters for these first two groups are not meant to preclude the creation of future working groups to develop ``SNA MIBs'' in other areas of common interest. It was mentioned that the MIB for LLC-2 will need to be coordinated with the similar IEEE MIB definition effort. Several individuals volunteered to edit and/or author the documents and other volunteered to chair the working groups. o Bill Kelly. Editor Working Group 1 (PU2, PU2.1 and LUs 1,2,3) o Shannon Nix and Wayne Clark. Editors Working Group 2 (LLC-2 and SDLC) o Baktha Muralidharan, Jeff Hilgeman and Zbigniew Kielczewski. Chairs (Area Director to make choices). o Baktha Muralidharan, Zbigniew Kielczewski, Bill Kwan and Kitty Shih. Authors. PUs 2.0/2.1 o Kitty Shih and Zbigniew Kielczewski. LUs 4 o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, Bill Kwan, and Rina Nathaniel. SDLC o Shannon Nix, Patrick Leung, and Wayne Clark. LLC-2 Action Items o Baktha Muralidharan and Deirdre Kostick are to work on appropriate wording of the charters and distribute drafts to the mailing list. o Authors are to post their MIBs for WG's 1 and 2 by April 30th. Attendees Michael Allen moallen@ralvmg.vnet.ibm.com David Arneson arneson@ctron.com David Battle battle@cs.utk.edu Mahesh Bhatia bhatia@ctron.com Fred Bohle fab@interlink.com Michael Bowman meb@netlink.com Jeff Case case@cs.utk.edu Jia-bing Cheng cheng@ralvm6.vnet.ibm.com Anthony Chow chow_a@wwtc.timeplex.com Wayne Clark wclark@cisco.com Tracy Cox tacox@sabre.bellcore.com Wayne Cullen wnc@netlink.com Kishan Dudkikar kishan@icm1.icp.net Eric Fleischman ericf@act.boeing.com Cleve Graves cvgpc@oc.com Jeff Hilgeman jeffh@apertus.com Bill Kelly kellywh@mail.auburn.edu Mark Kepke mak@fc.hp.com Kenneth Key key@cs.utk.edu Zbigniew Kielczewski zbig@eicon.qc.ca Moshe Kochinski moshek@FibHaifa.com Deirdre Kostick dck2@sabre.bellcore.com William Kwan kwan@rabbit.com Patrick Leung patrickl@eicon.qc.ca William McKenzie mckenzie@ralvma.vnet.ibm.com Robert Moskowitz 3858921@mcimail.com Satinder Mundra mundra@ctron.com Baktha Muralidharan murali@smaug.enet.dec.com Rina Nathaniel rina!rnd!rndi@uunet.uu.net Tom Nisbet nisbet@tt.com Shannon Nix sdn@netlink.com Bill Norton wbn@merit.edu Eric Olinger eric@peregrine.com Jon Penner jjp@bscs.uucp David Perkins dperkins@synoptics.com Thomas Pusateri pusateri@cs.duke.edu 5 Owen Reddecliffe owen%wrq@mcimail.com Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Rick Royston rick@lsumvs.sncc.lsu.edu Joseph Rumolo attmail!jrumolo Chris Shaw cshaw@banyan.com Kitty Shih kmshih@novell.com Timon Sloane timon@timon.com Stuart Stanley stuarts@apertus.com Barbara Sterling bjs@mcdata.com Stephen Tsun snt@3com.com Steven Waldbusser waldbusser@andrew.cmu.edu James Watt james@newbridge.com Kiho Yum kxy@nsd.3com.com 6