Re: WG Review: Evolution of SNMP (eos)

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

The IESG wrote:
> 
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and Management
> Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
> 
> The following Description was submitted, and is provided for
> informational purposes only:
> 
> Evolution of SNMP (eos)
> -------------------------
> 
>  Current Status: Proposed Working Group
> 
> Description of Working Group:
> 
> A small number of changes added to the SNMP protocol would provide a
> substantial improvement to the protocol in terms of utility and
> efficiency. The changes must fall within the existing SNMP architecture
> as defined in RFC 2571. The intent of the working group is to focus on
> changes that may be easily defined and implemented which should then
> promote rapid acceptance and deployment. New protocol operations are
> within the realm of acceptable changes that may be defined.
> 
> The initial work items include:
> 
> - A standards-track document defining the mechanism by which the
>   capabilities of a SNMP entity may be determined. This document should
>   also define the interoperability requirements of the SNMP protocol
>   when extensions are present and when they are absent;
> 
> - A standards-track document defining a mechanism for efficient
>   retrieval, creation, and deletion of rows in tables;
> 
> - A standards-track document defining a mechanism used to delete an
>   entire subtree of managed object instances. This could, for example,
>   be used to remove all information related to a particular username in
>   the SNMP administrative framework;
> 
> - A standards-track document defining a mechanism to provide for
>   compression of object identifiers to remove as much redundant
>   information as possible in the payload of the SNMP message; and,
> 
> - A standards-track document defining a mechanism for bulk transfer of
>   SNMP data.
> 
> Some of the documents may be combined if the working group so decides.
> 
> No additional work items may be taken on by the working group until this
> initial set of work is close to completion. Additional work will have to
> be approved by the IESG and the IAB.

I propose that the initial charter also include the following item to support
current work in the SMIng WG:

 - A standards-track document defining mechanisms for supporting
   object-oriented transactions (i.e. OO methods), such as a variant of the 
   SetPDU in which additional varbinds may be be returned in the ResponsePDU.
   Other protocol extensions for support of OO mechanisms defined in
   the SMIng WG may also be needed.

Andy