Network Management Area Director(s): o James Davin: jrd@ptt.lcs.mit.edu Area Summary reported by James Davin/MIT During the Twenty-Fourth plenary meeting of the IETF, nine working groups and two Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) sessions met in the network management area. Simple Management Protocol (SMP) Framework BOF (SMPFRAME) The SMPFRAME BOF addressed a recent proposal for evolutionary enhancements to the SNMP network management framework. During this session, developers of the SMP (Simple Management Protocol) proposal gave a comprehensive technical presentation of their ideas, and a period of detailed discussion ensued. Several common themes emerged from that discussion: o There was general agreement that a single transition from existing SNMP technology to the next stage of SNMP evolution is highly desirable; multi-stage or protracted transitions were generally felt to be undesirable. o There was general agreement that minimizing the number of distinct management technologies deployed in the Internet is highly desirable. o Most members of the community felt that the SMP proposals addressed many of the perceived problems in the current SNMP framework, although many members suggested that certain adjustments to the SMP work could increase its value and acceptance to the community. o There was general agreement that an aggressive schedule for standardizing the next generation of SNMP technology is appropriate. o There was general agreement that security aspects of new SNMP technologies should be considered separately from purely network management aspects, although consideration of both aspects must be coordinated carefully in terms of schedule. Based on the community discussion during the BOF session, SMP proponents agreed to contribute their work to the process of SNMP evolution that was set in motion in March. 1 A tentative plan has been formulated to further that process in response to community sentiment expressed during the Cambridge IETF meeting: o As described in the plan for SNMP evolution, detailed technical specifications which are contributed to the SNMP evolution process will be published as Internet Drafts. o The first phase of the evolution process (the call for contributions) will be concluded soon. Community members with detailed, written technical proposals for SNMP evolution are encouraged to contribute those proposals as Internet Drafts in the very near future or at least to inform the IESG of their intent to do so. Announcement of the closing date will be made to the IETF mailing list, and the relevant working group(s) will be not be obligated to consider contributions after that date. o Consistent with the process set in motion in March, an open IETF working group will be chartered to consider the written contributions to the SNMP evolution process. Consistent with the community sentiment for timely progress, the first meeting of that working group will be sometime in September. As usual, the organization and charter for this working group will be announced on the IETF mailing list. o This working group will conclude its business not later than the plenary meeting of the IETF in the spring of 1993 and its schedule will be closely coordinated with any related activity within the existing working group on SNMP security. Uninterruptable Power Supply BOF (UPSMIB) Among the Birds-of-a-Feather sessions that met during the week was a session on SNMP instrumentation for uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs). Approximately 8--10 UPS vendors and a number of other interested parties met to discuss the substance and format of possible work in this area. The Group reviewed a strawman MIB document (available as an Internet Draft) and concluded that a working group effort to pursue a UPS MIB is desirable. Bridge MIB Working Group (BRIDGE) The Bridge MIB Working Group met after a period of inactivity to consider alignment of the existing Bridge MIB work with recent IEEE work on source routing bridges. The Group discussed a revision to the existing MIB that would support identification of the protocol or protocols in use by a bridge device. The Group also decided to address the recent IEEE work on source routing by beginning work on a new MIB devoted to those functions. The new MIB would include portions of the existing Bridge MIB relevant to source routing together with any new objects that may be required for alignment with the IEEE work. The 2 existing MIB document is expected to be considered soon for Draft Standard status, whereas the newer MIB document is expected to enter the standards track when the working group effort is complete. Chassis MIB Working Group (CHASSIS) The Chassis MIB Working Group met to continue discussion of a MIB that instruments collections of traditional network devices that may be comprised by a single physical package. The Group continued its discussion of an existing Internet Draft document and addressed in particular the mapping of MIB views to managed devices within a chassis. The Group also reviewed the desirability and priority of its several work items. DS1/DS3 MIB Working Group (TRUNKMIB) The TRUNKMIB Working Group met to continue its discussion of revisions to the existing DS1 and DS3 MIBs as they are considered for Draft Standard status. The goal of these revisions is to reflect implementation experience with the existing versions and to align with ANSI work in this area. Revised Internet Draft documents reflecting the discussion during this meeting are expected soon. FDDI MIB Working Group (FDDIMIB) The FDDI MIB Working Group met to discuss alignment of the existing FDDI MIB (RFC 1285) with version 7.2 of the SMT work recently produced by ANSI. The Group began discussion of what changes were desirable to accomplish that alignment. Host Resources MIB Working Group (HOSTMIB) The Host Resources MIB Working Group met for the first time in Cambridge. An initial draft of a host resources MIB was discussed, and there was a consensus to adopt that draft for use as a baseline document. Discussion of the developing host resources MIB will continue at an interim Working Group meeting sometime in September. The time and place of that meeting will be announced on the Working Group mailing list. IEEE 802.3 Hub MIB Working Group (HUBMIB) The Hub MIB Working Group also met in Cambridge. This Group affirmed a minor change to the 802.3 Repeater MIB document (involving a change to an enumerated type) before its presentation for consideration as a Proposed Standard. The Group began its discussion of a MIB for 802.3 MAUs and decided that this new MIB will cover both DTE and repeater devices. Internet Accounting Working Group (ACCT) 3 The Internet Accounting Working Group met at the Cambridge meeting to conclude its business. At the meeting, it was reported that an initial implementation of the MIB drafted by the Working Group is underway at the University of Auckland. A second implementor is being sought. The Group is seeking publication of its MIB as an experimental RFC, and verified that the MIB could be subsequently considered for the standards track if community interest and need warranted. The Group contemplated opening a discussion with members of the Router Requirements Working Group to assess interest in this work among router vendors. The Group also recommended that work be undertaken within the IETF Network Management Area to provide common identifiers for various link-layer media and network protocols, as this would facilitate any future accounting work. Token Ring Remote Monitoring MIB Working Group (TRMON) The Token Ring Remote Monitoring MIB Working Group met to continue discussion of extensions to the mechanisms of RFC 1271 to support remote monitoring of IEEE 802.5 token ring LANs. Discussion will continue, and closure on these token ring extensions will be sought via email. Moreover, implementation experience with the existing RMON MIB (RFC 1271) will be discussed via email with the goal of reaching consensus on what changes may be appropriate as the RMON MIB is considered for elevation to Draft Standard status. X.25 Management Information Base Working Group (X25MIB) The X.25 MIB Working Group met to work in earnest on the last of the three MIBs in its Charter. The Group completed deliberation on a MIB to instrument multi-protocol over X.25 convergence functions. The Group had previously completed work on MIBs for instrumenting LAPB and the X.25 packet layers. These latter MIBs were reviewed at the Cambridge meeting and will soon be presented to the IESG for a recommendation. 4