Disman Minutes Reported by Steve Waldbusser Munich 8/11/97 Agenda 1. Administrativia 2. Technical Presentations (none offered) 3. Discussion SNMPv3 Framework Target MIB Expression MIB Script MIB Notification MIB Common Issues 4. Future Work 5. Closing Action Items Interim Meeting Next Meeting Status of new Charter It is ready to go forward through the IESG process Note it was mentioned that there are new requirements for IETF specifications that the document editors need to conform to for our work (standard ops guide changes for security and internationalization) Framework issues Due to SNMPv3, the framework document needs to change. Specifically much of the notification work has become part of the SNMPv3 framework. The Target MIB may also need to be updated or deleted. Andy Bierman will review the target MIB to see what changes might be warranted. There was some discussion about the additional framework issue of delegation of authority. There were three options discussed: 1. Disman functions run with the authority of the disman system 2. Disman functions have security "tokens" downloaded along with the "script" 3. Disman functions have security "tokens" downloaded along with the "script", as well as the ability to have setuid priveleges The discussion that ensued preferred option #2 over #1. Filtering, transmission, and logging were identified as the three notification functions. Steve Waldbusser mentioned 2 event-related issues that Bob Stewart and David Levy agreed to bring up in the SNMPv3 group: 1. If a notification is duplicated by the network, there is no way for the receiving application to tell that 2 events did not occur. 2. If an application wants to send a notification that contains more varbinds than can fit in a PDU, there is no way to associate the multiple PDUs that result so it is clear that they are part of the same transaction. There was some discussion about the conflict between our common usage of the term "application" and the new SNMPv3 usage of that term. This is particularly problematic in the disman group because we talk about applications a lot. Bob Stewart mentioned that Cisco is implementing the Expression MIB. The experience to date is that it is somewhat complicated. Bob will report back more experience and believes that in about 2 months he can revise the Expression MIB. The Script MIB needs to be updated to deal with naming WRT the issue of delegation of authority. Other issues need to be handled as well. Juergen believes he can get a revised draft out in September (before the draft expires). There was some discussion on the multiple ways of handling scheduling of disman apps (e.g., event-driven, scheduled). This is still an unsolved issue. There was a lot of discussion about the lack of a common language for the script MIB causing interoroperability problems. Jon Curran suggested that if we can't choose one, maybe we can choose a language of last resort. The discussion of narrowing the list of potential languages to a short list (hopefully one) was deferred to informal discussions during the course of the IETF meeting. There was some discussion about the fact that in the current framework that IPv6 addresses are not supported as targets. It was generally agreed that this needs to be fixed. There was discussion about the use of IMPLIED in the framework MIB and the fact that v1 compilers will not understand it. Once it was recognized that this is not a problem for using SNMPv1 PDUs (only v1 MIB compilers) the group agreed to keep using IMPLIED where appropriate. The group agreed to switch all DisplayStrings in the DisMan MIBs to UTF8 format. Futures The group agreed to have an interim meeting, possibly combined with the SNMPv3 interim meeting, and also to reserve 2 slots at the next IETF meeting.