Proceedings (PDF) - Internet Engineering Task Force

Page 2
Alert Management
Working Group
Several divisions were proposed for the work’~ to be done.
Lou discussed his interpretation, in which he focused on (i) the
flow of previously generate.d alerts and (2) managed MIB objects
to generate them. Examples of each were briefly cited, as Lou
has already coded and tested these ideas°
Jeff Case expressed strong concern that the Working Group not
focus on managed MIB objects to generate ale.rts. The feeling of
many SNMP implementors was that this would violate the philosophy
of SNMP, which uses the protocol (rather than managed objects)
generate traps. While some SNMP users may be using such objects
in the experimental space of the MIB, it is inconsistent to
define such variables. Doing so (even with ’~optional" MIB
objects), would make the MIB appear to be slanted towards use
with CMOT.
Lee LaBarre presented the (.~4IP view of Events, and the areas that
ISO looks at to manage them. This was basically a superset of
Lou’s view.
The desire to develop techniques fully compatible with both SNMP
and CMOT led to a decision that two RFCs would be submitted. The
first would deal with managing the flow of information caused by
asynch, generated alerts. The second (with a requested
status of "optional") would discuss techniques for generating
such alerts that are self-limiting; those that do not allow an
excess of alerts to be generated.
Lou agreed to set up a mailing list for the group. He did not
think that ibm.com was available, and agreed to look for an
alternative (SNMP @ nisc.nyser.net was suggested for a start).
Lou also took the action item to write up a draft of the first
("flow") document, describing some of the systems he has used.
This will be posted to the list for initial review.