CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Brian D. Handspicker/DEC MINUTES The November 2, 1989 meeting of Netman/CMOT WG was opened by co-chair Brian Handspicker. Lou Steinberg was appointed recording secretary for this meeting. 1. NEW GROUP NAME The group has changed its name to better reflect its charter to "OSI INTERNET MANAGEMENT". The charter will be clarified to reflect our goals to specify management of IP-based and OSI-based local area and wide area networks in the Internet. The management recommendations specified by this group will be based on OSI management standards and working drafts, NIST implementors agreements and Network Management Forum recommendations. For the most part, this group is not defining new standards, but rather is recommending how existing OSI specifications and implementors agreements can be used for the management of the Internet. 2. NEW DOCUMENTS To follow through on this charter, five documents will be generated and circulated by the end of 1989: o Implementors Agreements o Event Management o SMI Extensions o MIB Extensions o OSI Management Overview o Guidelines for the Definition of Internet Managed Objects These documents will all have the super-title: OSI Management for the Internet. These documents will be circulated as Internet Drafts with the intention that prototypes of each these agreements will be completed and tested before each is proposed as an Internet RFC. It is hoped that this testing can be completed by March/April 1990. Throughout the creation and testing of these drafts the OIM WG will attempt to maintain close alignment with the Alert-Man and Management Services Interface WGs. (a) Implementors Agreements The implementors agreements will specify protocol, SMI and MIB agreements. The protocol agreements will reference the new IS version of ISO CMIP. The IS CMIP is expected to be registered in early 1990. Experts have estimated that it will take about 3 man-weeks to align a DIS-based CMIP implementation with the IS draft. This was considered to be insignificant compared to the value of providing initial CMOT products based on the IS. In addition, the protocol agreements will be drafted to specify both CMIP Over lpp over Tcp (CMOT) and CMIP over full OSI stack (CMIP). In either case, the Application Layer protocol is identical. The SMI agreements will reference the Internet extended SMI. The MIB agreements will reference the Internet extended MIB-II. There is the potential for future work on a version of CMIP that runs on top of full ISO Session and Presentation on top of TCP instead of LPP. This may provide improved interoperability between CMOT and CMIP implementations. This may not be necessary if dual stack systems become popular. This issue will not be addressed in the current documents. The implementation examples in the appendix of the current CMOT document will be retained in the new Implementors Agreements. (b) Event Management An Event Management Model has been proposed which aligns with current OSI Event Management and Reporting. Some concern was expressed that the OIM Event Management Model align with the work being done within the Alert-Man WG. In addition there is an opportunity to align SNMP traps and OIM events codes and semantics. (c) SMI The SMI Extensions document will reference the current Internet SMI and then specify extensions as necessary to support OSI Management of the Internet. In addition, the SMI document will reference the current ISO version of SMI in an attempt to align with ISO. (d) MIB Tentatively, the MIB extensions document will reference the current Internet MIB-II specification. We currently do not know of anything in MIB-II that causes problems to CMOT. This should be carefully reviewed by OSI experts. In addition, this MIB document will define extensions necessary to align with OSI Management. These extensions will include: DistinguishedAttributes for MIB-II "objects" and events. There is some concern that MIB-II should not include an in-line version no. in the variable codes. We were assured that the in-line version no. was not defined in MIB-II. The full MIB-II and all extensions defined in this document will be mapped into the ISO Template language. After this MIB document, protocol groups are not expected to define new MIBs or MIB extensions. It is expected that as new objects are defined by other working groups (e.g. OSI) the management information associated with those objects will be specified by the WG that defines the new object. (e) OSI Mangement Overview The Overview sectionand the Examples appendix of the current CMOT document will be retained in a new Overview document. (f) Guidelines for the Definition of Internet Managed Objects The IETF wrapup (closing plenary) participants recommended that the management groups write guidelines for defining managed objects. This will help the non-management groups (e.g. OSI) define the managed objects associated with their services. This document is not the same as the ISO GDMO draft. This document is specific to the IETF and may point to other document (such as GDMO) as additional reading. 3. INTEROPERABILITY TESTING There is vendor interest in availability of an interoperability testing lab. DEC is willing to set up and run such a lab in the next few months. They are currently looking for facilities on the West Coast. Vendors interested in participating in such a lab should contact Dave Crocker. HP will solicit comments on desired test cases and produce a document specifying test scripts. HP has offered to host the next OIM meeting focusing on interoperability. This meeting will likely be in January in the Bay Area. ATTENDEES Halcin, Tom Handspicker, Brian Joshi, Satish Kerby, Kathy Nadler, Dennis Newkerk, Oscar Norton, Bill Roberson, Jim Steinberg, Louis Wilder, Bruce