CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by James W. Watt/Newbridge Networks Corporation Minutes of the Frame Relay Service MIB Working Group (FRNETMIB) Documents Discussed o Service Management Architecture for Virtual Connection Services (1 July) o Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Services (2 July) Issues Discussed o Frame Relay Forum (FRF) Andy Malis, Chair of the FRF, presented the work plan for the FRF effort. The start and end dates of the FRF effort match those of the FRNETMIB Working Group and there are some intermediate meetings. The goal shared by both groups is to have a standard MIB by December of 1993. o Service Management Architecture Ken Rodemann gave a presentation based on the 2 July draft of his document. The general reaction was positive, and in particular the ``(virtual-)circuit table'' was identified as a work item to be discussed with the ATOMMIB and IFMIB Working Groups. Discussion of the rest of the Service Management Architecture document will continue in the FRNETMIB Working Group. o Draft MIB Based on discussions of the 2 July draft, consensus was reached on the following: - The PVC table was split into a ``flow'' (or connection) table and an end-point table. - The per-PVC InUnits and OutUnits counters were renamed to InOctets and OutOctets for consistency with other MIBs and frPVCUnitSize was renamed to (something like) OctetResolution (see action item #2). - The LPortNetAddress object was dropped as a duplicate of ifPhysAddr. - A reference to ifPhysAddress was placed in the description of LPortNumPlan. 1 - The frPVCConnectStatus trap needs to have words to prevent flooding a manager with traps when a whole link fails. There is an added complexity with respect to the modeling of NNI links (see action item #3). - The next draft of the MIB will be in SNMPv2. - The focus of the MIB is primarily Customer Network Management (CNM) of PVCs for Frame Relay; however, it may be useful for other purposes. Action Items 1. Tracy Brown to issue a revised MIB draft (in SNMP V2 format) prior to the August FRF meeting. 2. Tracy Brown to find consensus on where ``unit size'' should be in the MIB (end-point table or logical port table). 3. Tracy Brown, Ken Rodemann and James Watt to clarify wording on trap suppression in MIB draft. Attendees Masuma Ahmed mxa@sabre.bellcore.com David Arneson arneson@ctron.com Fred Baker fbaker@acc.com Caralyn Brown cbrown@wellfleet.com Tracy Brown tacox@mail.bellcore.com Theodore Brunner tob@thumper.bellcore.com Steve Buchko stevebu@newbridge.com Chris Chiotasso chris@andr.ub.com David Fresquez fresquez@vnet.ibm.com Andrew Malis malis@maelstrom.timeplex.com Keith McCloghrie kzm@hls.com George Mouradian gvm@arch3.att.com Daniel Myers dan@nsd.3com.com Zbigniew Opalka zopalka@agile.com David Perkins dperkins@synoptics.com Aiko Pras pras@cs.utwente.nl Dan Romascanu dan@lannet.com Marshall Rose mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Jean-Bernard Schmitt jbs@vnet.ibm.com Tibor Schonfeld tibor@qsun.att.com Kaj Tesink kaj@cc.bellcore.com Dono van-Mierop dono_van_mierop@3mail.3com.com James Watt james@newbridge.com Peter Wilson peter_wilson@3mail.3com.com 2