Subject: Questions/Concerns/Requirements Collected During AIW 6/28/94

From: "David D. Chen ((919)-254-6182 8-444)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 09:05:06 EDT

The following are the list of questions/concerns/requirements
collected during the DLSw MIB discussions on 6/28/94.  We will
form our consensus in the next few weeks and your comments are
requested.  Please send all your comments to
       [email-masked]

Items are numbered, you can simply refer to the item number if you
prefer.  Thanks.

David Chen
IBM Corp.

......................................................................

Item 1: Should the MIB allow more than one DLSw entities?
        - will there ever be more than one DLSw per box (agent)?
        - if yes, will other solution satisfy the requirement?
          (e.g., each DLSw entity uses a different community name)
        - will it be too costly to allow DLSw entities in the MIB?

Item 2: Should the MIB allow transport connections other than TCP/IP?

Item 3: Align with DLC MIBs (SDLC, 802.2 LLC), NAU/APPN MIBs
        and pointers to those MIBs

Item 4: Should the MIB be designed for configuring data link switches?

Item 5: Size of the MIB

Item 6: One set of Capabilities Exchange for
        - all (e.g., one set of CapEx to be sent to all partners), or
        - partner dependent (e.g., one CapEx for each partner), or
        - transport type dependent (eg, one for each transport type), or
        - ... ?

Item 7: SNMP SET and dynamic configuration operations should be
        clearly specified.

Item 8: MIB should be consistent with DLSw protocol.
        - How does MIB map to protocol?

Item 9: Implication to NMS, e.g., MIB browser.
        A scenario:
        if the rate of entries generated in the event table is
        higher than the rate the SNMP NMS can dump the table, and
        if the NMS dump every object instance in the agent,
        then the NMS will never be able to reach the end of the event
        table, and the NMS will never get any object instances after
        the event table.

Item 10: When developing the MIB, it should always keep in mind of
        how NMS uses these objects.

Item 11: What condition that traps will get generated should be
        clearly stated.

Item 12: If it is vendor's option to implement some of the objects
        (e.g., counters), how to specify this situation in the
        MIB module?  In description clause?  Any precedent?
        (It seems that conformance clause is only used for specify
        what objects need to present when a function is supported.)

Item 13: Balance between
        - a minimum set of "standard" MIB with a bunch of similar
          enterprise specific objects, and
        - a large "standard" MIB with a bunch of "optional" objects