Transport Performance Metrics MIB
draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-14
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin |
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie |
2012-08-22
|
14 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2004-11-05
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2004-11-04
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2004-11-04
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2004-11-04
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2004-11-04
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-11-04 from 2004-08-12 |
2004-11-04
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2004-10-14
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
2004-09-06
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Checking again with Allison. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 17:06 To: 'Allison Mankin (E-mail)' Cc: 'Andy Bierman (E-mail)' Subject: … Checking again with Allison. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 17:06 To: 'Allison Mankin (E-mail)' Cc: 'Andy Bierman (E-mail)' Subject: RE: TPM-MIB Another (still friendly :-)) prod/ping. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 21:06 > To: Allison Mankin (E-mail) > Cc: Andy Bierman (E-mail) > Subject: RE: TPM-MIB > > > Allison, I hope this did not fall through the cracks!? > > Thanks, Bert > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 16:52 > > To: Allison Mankin (E-mail) > > Cc: Andy Bierman (E-mail) > > Subject: FW: TPM-MIB > > > > > > Allison, some feedback from Andy, wg-chair of the RMONMIB WG > > > > What do you say? > > > > Thanks, Bert > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 16:40 > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: Bert Wijnen > > Subject: RE: TPM-MIB > > > > > > At 03:48 PM 8/19/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > >I am still discussing this with Allison. > > > > > >She wonders how there can be interoperable implementations > > of this MIB > > >module if we do not make the IPPM registry a normative > reference and > > >explicit text that that registry needs to be used. > > > > This is a gray area. > > The registry holds OIDs which represent a registration > > from some SDO or vendor. This includes but is not limited > > to IPPM metrics. > > > > I suppose there is implicit normative text that an implementation > > MAY include IPPM metrics. The issue is whether we should have > > explicit normative text that says MUST or SHOULD include > IPPM metrics. > > If so, then a normative reference is in order. The WG never > > really addressed this issue. We assume that the most useful > > metrics will get used, and these may change over time. > > > > I am nervous about locking into a specific set of metrics, > > which is a potentially unstable snapshot of the IPPM WG > > output at some point in time. We need to think carefully > > about this normative reference. > > > > thanks, > > Andy > > > > > > > > >I will have more interactions with her later (hopefully > > tomorrow Friday). > > >If you have suggestion on how to resolve, pls let me know. > > > > > >Thanks, Bert > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] > > >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 00:17 > > >> To: Bert Wijnen > > >> Subject: TPM-MIB > > >> > > >> > > >> Hi Bert, > > >> > > >> It looks like there is an AD Discuss related to the IPPM Registry. > > >> Is this just a missing normative reference or something more? > > >> > > >> thanks, > > >> Andy > > >> > > > |
2004-08-20
|
14 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 |
2004-08-19
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-08-12
|
14 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie |
2004-08-12
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2004-08-12
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Cjhecking with ADs if DISCUSSes have properly been addressed. Back on next telechat agenda as a forcing tool. |
2004-08-12
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-08-12 from 2004-07-15 |
2004-08-12
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-08-19 by Bert Wijnen |
2004-07-15
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2004-07-15
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-07-15
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-14.txt |
2004-07-15
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2004-07-15
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | New revision was submitted july 2nd, but sofar has not shown up in the I-D repository. Seems that new rev (14) does address all discusses. … New revision was submitted july 2nd, but sofar has not shown up in the I-D repository. Seems that new rev (14) does address all discusses. It compiles clean. Checking with ietf secretariat and author why the submission did not get posted in the repository. |
2004-07-15
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-07-15 from 2004-04-08 |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The uses of transport and transaction are not careful. There's nothing in this MIB that affects its applicability to a transaction-oriented or a … [Ballot comment] The uses of transport and transaction are not careful. There's nothing in this MIB that affects its applicability to a transaction-oriented or a bulk-transport-oriented transport protocol metric. I think they inherited verbiage from the APM which did care about transactions. |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's - the draft should normatively reference draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry, which is in AD Evaluation, and which registers … [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's - the draft should normatively reference draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry, which is in AD Evaluation, and which registers the IETF's OIDs for the tmpMetricDefTable. The tpmMetricDefTable describes the metrics available to the TPM-MIB. The tpmMetricDefTable defines metrics by referencing existing IETF, ITU and other standards organizations' documents This table contains one row per metric supported by this agent, and should be populated during system initialization In the IPPM draft, we still have some confusion (which Chairs and I have discussed with Bert) about how other standards bodies register OIDs usefully. It seems like there should be an IANA Considerations here and in the IPPM draft that says a Specification Required, because the OID needs to be imported by the MIBs using it. Is that right? An IANA Considerations section is needed for p.14, at least. The IPPM WG should look at this document. I think it's a candidate for their reporting MIB milestone, instead of the problem draft they have. It has interesting statistics. |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's: The tpmMetricDefTable describes the metrics available to the … [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's: The tpmMetricDefTable describes the metrics available to the TPM-MIB. The tpmMetricDefTable defines metrics by referencing existing IETF, ITU and other standards organizations' documents This table contains one row per metric supported by this agent, and should be populated during system initialization draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry registers the OIDs for IETF's metrics, and it is in AD Evaluation (I'm just sorting out its language about other standards bodies). What should this draft (and that one) say about how other standards bodies register OIDs for metrics? Specification Required (they write a MIB-formed OID to be imported?). Now this document needs to reference the ippm draft normatively, I think. Does it also need to import the registry? An IANA Considerations section is needed for p.14, at least. The IPPM WG should look at this document. I think it's a candidate for their reporting MIB milestone. |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's (he can probably remove his): The tpmMetricDefTable describes the metrics … [Ballot discuss] This Discuss is a superset of Russ's (he can probably remove his): The tpmMetricDefTable describes the metrics available to the TPM-MIB. The tpmMetricDefTable defines metrics by referencing existing IETF, ITU and other standards organizations' documents This table contains one row per metric supported by this agent, and should be populated during system initialization draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry registers the OIDs for IETF's metrics, and it is in AD Evaluation (I'm just sorting out its language about other standards bodies). What should this draft (and that one) say about how other standards bodies register OIDs for metrics? Specification Required (they write a MIB-formed OID to be imported?). Now this document needs to reference the ippm draft normatively, I think. Does it also need to import the registry? An IANA Considerations section is needed for p.14, at least. The IPPM WG should look at this document. I think it's a candidate for their reporting MIB milestone. |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-04-15
|
14 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2004-04-14
|
14 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-04-14
|
14 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-DIR. His review: Update IPR text and Status of this Memo text. Otherwise, ship it. |
2004-04-14
|
14 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-04-14
|
14 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-04-13
|
14 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] In this text: tpmMetricDefReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current … [Ballot discuss] In this text: tpmMetricDefReference OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SnmpAdminString MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object contains a reference to the document which defines this metric. If this document is available online via electronic download, then a URL should be specified in this object. For example, if this tpmMetricDefEntry identified the IPPM metric 'Type-P-Round-Trip-Delay', then this object should contain the value, e.g., 'http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2681.txt'." ::= { tpmMetricDefEntry 5 } the document recommends that a URL should be specified for this object. It seems likely that they wanted to specify an HTTP URI, rather than generically allowing any URI type to be used here (though they may have intended that HTTP, FTP, and some additional types be named). There are some URI types which may not be appropriate here. Naming the URI schemes which are allowed would improve interoperability; if the document does not name the schemes which are allowed, it should explicitly point out the risks of including URIs which may not be dereferencable. |
2004-04-13
|
14 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-04-13
|
14 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Abstract says: > > The metrics are defined through reference to existing IETF, ITU and > other standards organizations' … [Ballot discuss] The Abstract says: > > The metrics are defined through reference to existing IETF, ITU and > other standards organizations' documents. > And then, Section 3 says: > > The TPM-MIB provides a capability to describe metrics by reference > to appropriate IETF, ITU or other standards defining metrics. > Yet, all of the references are to RFCs. I would think that informative references to any that have already been defined are needed. Are any tpmMetricDefinitionID values mandatory-to-support? |
2004-04-12
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bert Wijnen |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | No IETF Last Call Comments were received. |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-04-08 from 2004-03-16 |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-04-15 by Bert Wijnen |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen |
2004-04-08
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-03-31
|
14 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2004-03-17
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2004-03-17
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2004-03-16
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2004-03-16 from 2003-12-29 |
2004-03-16
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Bert Wijnen |
2004-03-16
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Last Call was requested by Bert Wijnen |
2004-03-16
|
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-03-16
|
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-03-16
|
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-01-23
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-13.txt |
2003-12-29
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Checking with WG chair and authors about: I note that Carl has changed email address. In TPM MIB and SSPM - I see reference to … Checking with WG chair and authors about: I note that Carl has changed email address. In TPM MIB and SSPM - I see reference to RFC1903, should be RFC2579 - I see reference to RFC2571, should be RFC3411 In fact 3411 and 2579 are listed in references section, so just take the otehr two out and make sure that citations in text are corrected to point to new RFCs. These are not new guys, RFC2579 and 3411 have been around for a YEAR or more now! In SSPM I see reference to RFC2063, which ahs been obsoleted by RFC2722 And a reference to RFC2064, whcih has been obsoleted by RFC2720 And a reference to RFC2592, which ahs been obsoleted by RFC3165 Now.. just before putting it on IESG agenda, I try to do a last SYNTAX compile check. Results: W: f(spm.mi2), (470,20) Item "sspmSourceProfileParameter" should have SIZE specified Probably best to limit to 64K or less!! E: f(tpm.mi2), (24,5) Item "ClientID" not defined in module "APM-MIB" E: f(tpm.mi2), (987,17) Item "ClientID" is not known in current module E: f(tpm.mi2), (987,17) In defining "tpmAggrReportApmNameClientID", syntax name "ClientID" is not known E: f(tpm.mi2), (1338,17) Item "ClientID" is not known in current module E: f(tpm.mi2), (1338,17) In defining "tpmCurReportApmNameClientID", syntax name "ClientID" is not known E: f(tpm.mi2), (913,44) Item "ClientID" is not known in current module E: f(tpm.mi2), (1295,45) Item "ClientID" is not known in current module The ClientID was changed in APM-MIB to RmonClientID This happened back in August in draft-ietf-rmonmib-apm-mib-11.txt So you should/could have seen/know as members of the rmonmib WG W: f(tpm.mi2), (902,13) Row "tpmAggrReportEntry" does not have a consistent indexing scheme - index item protocolDirLocalIndex from base row protocolDirEntry is not defined as an index item W: f(tpm.mi2), (1284,13) Row "tpmCurReportEntry" does not have a consistent indexing scheme - index item protocolDirLocalIndex from base row protocolDirEntry is not defined as an index item I may have asked this before. It is probably OK, but I do like positive acknowledgement that it indeed is OK. I would go dig in my email archives if this were the only issue, but since I need other asnwers as well... E: f(tpm.mi2), (1776,16) Item "apmReportGroup" should be IMPORTed E: f(tpm.mi2), (1777,16) Item "apmExceptionGroup" should be IMPORTed E: f(tpm.mi2), (1814,15) Item "apmReportGroup" is not defined in module "TPM-MIB" E: f(tpm.mi2), (1815,15) Item "apmExceptionGroup" is not defined in module "TPM-MIB" I believe that we now agree that we indeed prefer to import. I also wonder (not sure if I ever listed this before) about: tpmApmMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This compliance statement defines the following APM-MIB optional groups in order for the TPM-MIB to be used in drill-down support of the APM-MIB measurements: - apmReportGroup (optional) - apmExceptionGroup (optional) Further, if the tpmCurrentReportsGroup and the tpmExcpReportsGroup are to be implemented, then these APM-MIB groups are necessary." MODULE APM-MIB MANDATORY-GROUPS { apmReportGroup, apmExceptionGroup } ::= { tpmMIBCompliances 2 } So in the DESCRIPTION clause it claims that these 2 groups are optional and then it lists them as MANDATORY GROUPS !!?? Thanks, Bert |
2003-12-29
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-12-29 from 2003-12-14 |
2003-12-14
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2003-12-14
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | New revision declared ready by WG chair |
2003-12-14
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-12-14 from 2003-09-24 |
2003-12-14
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'New Revision received (rev 10), waiting for WG chair Responsible: WG chair ' has been cleared by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-27
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-12.txt |
2003-10-10
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-11.txt |
2003-09-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-09-24 from 2003-08-27 |
2003-09-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Bert Wijnen |
2003-09-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | New revision was received on Sept 11th. Waiting for WG chair go-ahead. Sending a ping today. |
2003-09-11
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-10.txt |
2003-08-27
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2003-08-27
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | WG chair informas me that a new revision is expected based on his review of this document. |
2003-08-27
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-08-27 from 2003-05-13 |
2003-06-27
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-09.txt |
2003-05-13
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-05-13 from 2003-02-24 |
2003-05-13
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | New revision was received in April |
2003-05-13
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: AD Followup from AD Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-04-18
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-08.txt |
2003-02-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | AD review comments have been posted to WG mailing list today (far to late of course, appologies). A new revision is expected to address all … AD review comments have been posted to WG mailing list today (far to late of course, appologies). A new revision is expected to address all the comment raised. |
2003-02-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-02-24 from 2002-12-28 |
2003-02-24
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Wijnen, Bert |
2002-12-28
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2002-12-28 from |
2002-12-28
|
14 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Wijnen, Bert |
2002-08-30
|
14 | Stephen Coya | Draft Added by scoya |
2002-08-14
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-07.txt |
2002-06-11
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-06.txt |
2002-03-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-05.txt |
2001-11-26
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-04.txt |
2001-07-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-03.txt |
2000-07-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-01.txt |
2000-05-17
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rmonmib-tpm-mib-00.txt |