CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Brian Handspicker/Digital OIM Minutes Agenda o RFC 1189 CMIP and CMOT Implementors Agreements for the Internet o OIM-MIB-II o General OSI MIB Extensions o Interoperability Testing RFC 1189 CMIP/CMOT RFC 1189 has been published as a Proposed Standard. Pending major objections on the mailing list, we agreed to remove the word ``substrings'' from the 1st bullet in section 4.3. This would remove the explicit exemption for support of substrings in filter expressions. In addition, the editor agree to clarify the specific 1990 version of ISO CMIS/P to be used, with the intent to use the final 1990 version. Finally, we discussed at length the 3 different potential protocols supported by 1189. 1189 specifies support of either a CMIP application layer over Lightweight Presentation Process over TCP/IP or, a CMIP application layer over an OSI upper layer stack. The OSI upper layers could in turn be based on either a full set of OSI lower layers or on ISO Transport over TCP/IP using agreements specified in RFC 1006. Clearly, a version of CMIP over a full OSI stack will be important for future OSI-based Internet backbone and sub-nets. Some version of CMIP should also be defined for IP-based Internet backbone and sub-nets. Since they provide similar functionality, CMOT based on LPP and a CMIP based on 1006 could be considered redundant. At the Tallahassee IETF meeting, it was recommended that all future protocols which require OSI upper layer functionality over IP-based protocols make use of RFC 1006. As a result, a couple of suggestions have been made that the specification for CMIP over LPP be removed from RFC 1189, and the potential use of RFC 1006 be clarified in the current text. Editorially, this is a minor change involving the removal of the one page which discusses how to layer CMIP over LPP and deletion of the phrase ``CMOT and'' from every instance of ``CMOT and CMIP''. Otherwise the technical implementors' agreements in RFC 1189 remain unchanged. Most known implementations of CMOT have been based on the LPP implementation distributed with ISODE. To convert these CMOT implementations to CMIP 1006 implementation requires little more than a 1 one line change to a makefile to reference the full ISODE library instead of the LPP library. While the wireline difference is significant, ISODE and RFC 1006 has been well exercised over the last 2 years. And, the CMIP application layer agreements specific in RFC 1189 remain unchanged. Thus, the suggestion to remove the specification of CMOT in favor of an RFC 1006-based CMIP is a relatively minor technical change to the existing RFC. It was pointed out that this change would align RFC 1189 with existing GOSIP and DOD requirements for OSI management. OIM-MIB-II OIM-MIB-II was announced as being considered by the IESG as a proposed standard. No objections or major corrections were offered by the meeting participants. General OSI MIB Extensions Once again, we have wrestled with the problem of mapping MIB definitions that follow the IETF SMI into a form supported by the ISO SMI. The IETF SMI was based on a very early draft of the ISO SMI. The ISO SMI continued to evolve as early problems were resolved. The IETF SMI has not kept pace. The ISO SMI is now stable and required by most OSI-based management systems. Unfortunately most of the MIBs being defined within the IETF are only satsifying the requirements of the IETF SMI, not taking into account the minor additional requirements for OSI management. This requires additional work to map these IETF SMI-based MIBs into ISO SMI. This is what the OIM-MIB-II document does for MIB-II. Unfortunately, the OIM Working Group cannot hope to keep up with all of the MIB work currently being progressed within the IETF and generate MIB extensions and mappings for each new MIB. In addition, some of the MIB Working Groups are facing the reverse problem - trying to map ISO SMI defined MIBs (e.g., FDDI) into the IETF SMI. The most reasonable solution to this problem would be to put differences about protocols (SNMP and CMOT) behind us and encourage the individual MIB Working Groups to develop MIB definitions that support both the IETF SMI and ISO SMI. This would ensure that all MIB definitions - which really just defined manageable resources, without any dependence on management protocols - were aligned across whatever management protocol or management system was used by an administrator for managing an environment. If we do not resolve this issue, we run the risk of having different management definitions (MIBs) for the same resources. This would waste resources both within the IETF as well as within every vendor and many customers. We agreed to raise this to the IESG for reconsideration. Interoperability Testing 2 We discussed future interoperability testing, and an open invitation was made by Brian Handspicker to coordinate another round of interoperability testing. Any vendors interested in testing RFC 1189 CMOT or CMIP are invited to send mail to bd@vines.dec.enet.com. Attendees Vikas Aggarwal vikas@JVNC.net Steve Alexander stevea@i88.isc.com Jack Brown jbrown@huachuca-emh8.army.mil Gregory Bruell gob@shiva.com Jeffrey Case case@cs.utk.edu Curtis Cox zk0001@nhis.navy.mil Tony Hain alh@eagle.es.net Brian Handspicker bd@vines.enet.dec.com Holly Knight holly@apple.com Lee Labarre Nik Langrind nik@shiva.com Walter Lazear lazear@gateway.mitre.org John Lunny jlunny@twg.com Lynn Monsanto monsanto@sun.com Bahaa Moukadam Oscar Newkerk newkerk@decwet.enet.dec.com Fred Ostapik fred@nisc.sri.com Mark Seger seger@asds.enet.dec.com Theresa Senn tcs@cray.com Daisy Shen daisy@ibm.com Daisy Shen daisy@ibm.com Mark Sleeper mws@sparta.com Sudhanshu Verma verma@hpindbu.cup.hp.com A. Lee Wade wade@discovery.arc.nasa.gov David Waitzman djw@bbn.com Linda Winkler b32357@anlvm.ctd.anl.gov Fei Xu fei@tdd.sj.nec.com Jeff Young jsy@cray.com 3