CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Jon Saperia/DEC DECNETIV Minutes 1. An early draft with 28 groups was distributed for discussion purposes, so that we could begin the process of removing redundant or unnecessary variables. 2. It was agreed that we would reorganize the MIB into groups that correspond to the various layers of software found in DECNet Phase 4. For example, the X.25, Network, Session, Routing, Data Link, and End Communication Layer Groups. This will also make it easier to use the same approach to optional and mandatory variables that is used for the Internet Standard MIB. For example, X.25 and all variables in that branch of the tree will be mandatory in implementations that support X.25 and not required for those implementations which do not provide X.25 service. More work is needed in this area and I will attempt to recast what we have defined into these groups. 3. Several people expressed the desire to keep the total number of variables down to less than 80. We will attempt this, however; since a prime purpose of the MIB is to allow DECNet Phase IV objects (including end systems) to be managed via SNMP, more DECNet variables will have to be implemented for the MIB than are currently found in some of the implementations in router products. 4. Each branch of the tree will be further devided into three sub-groups, these will be the parameters, counters and events sub-groups. In order to support the events sub-groups we will be defining DECNet Phase IV traps. Steve Willis will be writing up something to cover experimental trap id's. 5. For the sake of consistency each variable will have deciv prepended to it. 6. There will be a Working Group meeting before the October INTEROP time-frame so that these changes can be reviewed. Since a number of vendors have already implemented some portion of a DECNet MIB in their proprietary MIBs this will be an opportunity to merge them. 7. Where information is available in other MIBs, we will not include that as part of the DECNet phase IV mib. An example of this is the new ethernet MIB. 8. After the meeting, it was suggested that we may want to consider publishing the MIB in portions such as the Network Layer or DECNet Phase IV Routing MIB rather than waiting to do the entire piece at once. Comments on this appoach would be appreciated. 9. Members of this list will be contacted separately to set up the September Meeting. Attendees 1 Chris Chiotasso chris@sparta.com Farokh Deboo fjd@interlink.com Nadya El-Afandi nadya@network.com Stanley Froyd sfroyd@salt.acc.com Charles Hedrick hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu Steven Hunter hunter@ccc.mfecc.arpa David Perkins dave_perkins@3com.com Jonathan Saperia saperia%tcpjon@decwrl.dec.com Steve Willis swillis@wellfleet.com 2