Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28333 for nmrg-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:31:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from baxter.tollbridgetech.com (host120-106.tollbridgetech.com [205.178.120.106] (may be forged)) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28327; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:31:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from DPERKINS-NB1 ([10.2.254.25]) by baxter.tollbridgetech.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id V87WZACV; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:30:49 -0800 Message-Id: <4.1.20001031093257.00a6f890@mail.scruznet.com> X-Sender: dperkins@mail.scruznet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:33:43 -0800 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , dharrington@mediaone.net From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: Re: [nmrg] December meeting Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de In-Reply-To: <200010311508.QAA07747@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> References: <39FEDD10.E5DF9127@mediaone.net> <39FEDD10.E5DF9127@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1301 Lines: 39 HI, How about saturday and sunday in San Diego? Regards, /david t. perkins At 04:08 PM 10/31/2000 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >>>>>> David Harrington writes: > >David> Any updates on the logistics for the December meeting? > >David> Since this is scheduled directly before the IETF meeting, our >David> flights will need to go from Austin to San Diego. We need to >David> know what is happening on this meeting so we can schedule our >David> flights accordingly. > >David> Can we speed this up please? > >Dave, I am actively trying to get the final OK from the folks that >also host DSOM in Austin. However, the guy responsible for sending me >the OK stopped being responsive. So we are now looking to find an >alternate host in Austin. If someone knows an organization in Austin >that might be able to help out, please do not hesitate to contact me. > >I know it is getting late again. Believe me, I also prefer if all >these organizational things would have been settled a long time ago. > >/js > >-- >Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig > Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks >Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany >Fax: +49 531 391 5936 > > Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22241 for nmrg-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:08:17 +0100 (MET) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22235; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:08:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id QAA07747; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:08:10 +0100 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:08:10 +0100 Message-Id: <200010311508.QAA07747@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: dharrington@mediaone.net CC: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de In-reply-to: <39FEDD10.E5DF9127@mediaone.net> (message from David Harrington on Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:54:09 -0500) Subject: Re: [nmrg] December meeting References: <39FEDD10.E5DF9127@mediaone.net> Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 30 >>>>> David Harrington writes: David> Any updates on the logistics for the December meeting? David> Since this is scheduled directly before the IETF meeting, our David> flights will need to go from Austin to San Diego. We need to David> know what is happening on this meeting so we can schedule our David> flights accordingly. David> Can we speed this up please? Dave, I am actively trying to get the final OK from the folks that also host DSOM in Austin. However, the guy responsible for sending me the OK stopped being responsive. So we are now looking to find an alternate host in Austin. If someone knows an organization in Austin that might be able to help out, please do not hesitate to contact me. I know it is getting late again. Believe me, I also prefer if all these organizational things would have been settled a long time ago. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21446 for nmrg-outgoing; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:55:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21435 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:55:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from mediaone.net (h00104b8ce2a3.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.179.12]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03598 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:54:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <39FEDD10.E5DF9127@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:54:09 -0500 From: David Harrington X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] December meeting Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 301 Lines: 13 Any updates on the logistics for the December meeting? Since this is scheduled directly before the IETF meeting, our flights will need to go from Austin to San Diego. We need to know what is happening on this meeting so we can schedule our flights accordingly. Can we speed this up please? dbh Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19059 for nmrg-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:03:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19050 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:03:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id WAA20896 for nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:03:08 +0200 Received: from smtprch2.nortel.com (smtprch2.nortelnetworks.com [192.135.215.15]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13020 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:28:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from zrchb200.us.nortel.com (actually zrchb200) by smtprch2.nortel.com; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:49 -0500 Received: from zrtpd003.us.nortel.com ([47.140.202.30]) by zrchb200.us.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id 4VMDH49H; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:27:54 -0500 Received: from nortelnetworks.com (djsidor-1.us.nortel.com [47.202.31.13]) by zrtpd003.us.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id V43K7LDL; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:27:53 -0400 Message-ID: <39F8699F.1425C8EB@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:27:59 -0400 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Dave Sidor" Organization: Nortel Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-work CC: "David T. Perkins" , Andrea Westerinen , Dan Romascanu , mibs , rap , nim , Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming References: <15F58915DF84D311AC7D0090279AA614233F02@itc-eml2.lannet.com> <4.1.20001022230013.00afdf10@mail.scruznet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Orig: Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1978 Lines: 48 For your information, several years ago standards bodies involved in telecom management also recognized the need for the "definition of a transport-independent information information model so as to allow a variety of implementation-specific technologies to be derived from a single definition." This need was driven by advances in technologies applicable to telecom management, in fact to the management of networks of any description, and market pressures to take advantage of these advances. More specifically, ITU-T Study Group 4, which is responsible for the Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) framework, information models, and protocols, recently approved a revised TMN interface specification methodology in Recommendation M.3020 based on the following principles: - requirements need to be understandable to telecom management experts and yet provide sufficient detail to drive information modeling - information model details must be traceable to requirement details - information definitions must be defined independent of deployment (ie implementation) technology - industrial strength graphical methods and tools should be used, with an initial focus on OMG-approved Unified Modeling Language (UML) notations, including use case, class structure, sequence, collaboration, activity, and implementation diagrams as well as state charts - support for CMIP and CORBA environments should be provided initially This work was supported by related regional and national standards bodies, such as ETSI and T1, and built upon related work in the TeleManagement Forum. The role of M.3020 in TMN was described during the TMN SNMP BOF held at the IETF March meeting in Adelaide and related information from that BOF, including a copy of M.3020-2000, is available via ftp as follows: IP Address: 47.234.32.16 UserID: anonymous Path: /itu_to_ietf/SG4 Any comments on the above are of course welcome. Dave Sidor Chairman, ITU-T SG 4 djsidor@nortelnetworks.com Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16990 for nmrg-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:07:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [192.11.222.163]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16983 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:07:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06694 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06682 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:07:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:07:26 +0200 Message-ID: <2413FED0DFE6D111B3F90008C7FA61FB09CDE203@nl0006exch002u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Reply-To: sming@ops.ietf.org To: new-work , Dave Sidor Cc: David Perkins , Andrea Westerinen , Dan Romascanu , mibs , rap , nim , Network Management Research Group Subject: RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:07:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 3411 Lines: 82 Dave, I am answering this email... but please for further discussions, use sming@ops.ietf.org. To subscribe, send email to majordomo@psg.org, in body say: subscribe sming Dave, if you want to discuss this further with OPS ADs or IESG in general, then of course you can also send email to Rany and/or myself and/or to the iesg@ietf.org mailing list. The Information Modeling you talk about is a topic of the NIM BOF. That work has not been defined well enough yet to start a new WG. We are proposing to move SMI forward to address some of the issues that have been raised in the last so many years. Your input for both NIM discussions and for the potential sming WG are of course very wellcome. Below, I see that your focus is on CMIP and CORBA. Our focus for now is on SNMP and COPS. During the NIM BOF, I heard a lot of scepticism about the feasibility of trying to define one Information Model that would be able to handle all the different technologies and at the same time be compatible with all the exitsing models. Bert > ---------- > From: Dave Sidor[SMTP:djsidor@nortelnetworks.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 7:27 PM > To: new-work > Cc: David T. Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; Dan Romascanu; mibs; rap; nim; > Network Management Research Group > Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming > > For your information, several years ago standards bodies involved in > telecom management also recognized the need for the "definition of a > transport-independent information information model so as to allow a > variety of implementation-specific technologies to be derived from a > single definition." This need was driven by advances in technologies > applicable to telecom management, in fact to the management of networks > of any description, and market pressures to take advantage of these > advances. > > More specifically, ITU-T Study Group 4, which is responsible for the > Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) framework, information > models, and protocols, recently approved a revised TMN interface > specification methodology in Recommendation M.3020 based on the > following principles: > > - requirements need to be understandable to telecom management experts > and yet provide sufficient detail to drive information modeling > > - information model details must be traceable to requirement details > > - information definitions must be defined independent of deployment (ie > implementation) technology > > - industrial strength graphical methods and tools should be used, with > an initial focus on OMG-approved Unified Modeling Language (UML) > notations, including use case, class structure, sequence, collaboration, > activity, and implementation diagrams as well as state charts > > - support for CMIP and CORBA environments should be provided initially > > This work was supported by related regional and national standards > bodies, such as ETSI and T1, and built upon related work in the > TeleManagement Forum. > > The role of M.3020 in TMN was described during the TMN SNMP BOF held at > the IETF March meeting in Adelaide and related information from that > BOF, including a copy of M.3020-2000, is available via ftp as follows: > > IP Address: 47.234.32.16 > UserID: anonymous > Path: /itu_to_ietf/SG4 > > Any comments on the above are of course welcome. > > Dave Sidor > Chairman, ITU-T SG 4 > djsidor@nortelnetworks.com > Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23199 for nmrg-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23191; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id MAA08231; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:52 +0200 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:23:52 +0200 Message-Id: <200010261023.MAA08231@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] [owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: BOUNCE nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: Non-member submission from [David Harrington ]] Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 6962 Lines: 167 I am forwarding the following response from Dave Harrington (and I added his 3rd email address to the allowed posters file ;-). /js ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:35:27 -0400 From: David Harrington Reply-To: dbh@enterasys.com Organization: Enterasys Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-work@ietf.org CC: Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming References: <15F58915DF84D311AC7D0090279AA614233F02@itc-eml2.lannet.com> <4.1.20001022230013.00afdf10@mail.scruznet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The IESG rejected SNMPng, preferring SNMPv3 as the WG name, so I agree that SMIv3 would be better. dbh "David T. Perkins" wrote: > > HI, > > I did not see dan's original message. It contains a typo, in which > is calls the SMIng work SMICng. I've asked the IESG to please > rename this work if it goes forward to something other than SMIng, > because of the one letter difference between it and SMICng, which > is a commercial product. > > I suggest another name, such as SMIv3, be used instead of SMIng. > > Regards, > /david t. perkins > > At 01:44 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Andrea Westerinen wrote: > >Dan, On your second question, I read the charter as "providing for" an > >information model, not doing it. However, this needs to be much clearer. > >Mixing the definition of a language with the definition of an information > >model (that is expressed in the language) is mixing apples and oranges. > > > >Andrea > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-nim@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-nim@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Dan > >Romascanu > >Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:39 AM > >To: mibs@ops.ietf.org; 'rap@ops.ietf.org' > >Cc: new-work@ietf.org; 'nim@ops.ietf.org' > >Subject: RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming > > > > > >I apologize for the cross-posting, but this being a new work not directly > >emerged from any of the existing activities, but obviously connected with > >them, I have a hard time finding the appropriate list. > > > >I have two questions: > > > >* when the charter says 'The objective is to replace both the SMIv2 > >and the SPPI with a single merged language for defining information for the > >monitoring, configuration, and provisioning of network devices' what does > >replace mean? Is the intended work targeting the standards track, and SPPI > >and SMIv2 will one day become historical? (I actually do not know what is > >the resolution about the status of SPPI ) > >* The third paragraph talks about a 'transport independent information > >model'. How does this relate to NIM? NIM started to discuss about such a > >model, and seems to have got stuck in a dispute about the language. It looks > >like smicng has taken a shortcut and decided that it has the answer to the > >nim dilemma and found the appropriate language that nim could not agree > >upon. > > > >These questions are intended to clarify the relationship between the > >different pieces of work in the area. I think such a work is really needed - > >do we have the will and bandwidth to execute it? > > > >Regards, > > > >Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: The IESG [SMTP:iesg-secretary@ietf.org] > >> Sent: Fri October 20 2000 15:16 > >> To: IETF-Announce; @loki.ietf.org@ihrh2.emsr.lucent.com > >> Cc: new-work@ietf.org > >> Subject: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming > >> > >> 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: > >> > >> Next Generation Structure of Management Informatio (sming) > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Current Status: Proposed Working Group > >> > >> Description of Working Group: > >> > >> This working group shall develop a standards-track specification for the > >> next generation data definition language for specifying network > >> management data. The language will be based on the SMIng developed in > >> the IRTF Network Management Research Group. SMIng represents a superset > >> of the SMIv2 (Structure of Management Information v2) and the SPPI > >> (Structure of Policy Provisioning Information). The objective is to > >> replace both the SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single, merged language for > >> defining information for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning > >> of network devices. > >> > >> > >> The language developed will enable the modeling of network management > >> information in a manner that provides the benefits of object-oriented > >> design. To achieve this, the language must allow the design of highly > >> reusable syntactic/semantic components (templates) that can be reused by > >> multiple IETF working groups for convenience, consistency, and to > >> maximize interoperability in device management. A registration mechanism > >> will also be described for reusable components defined using the > >> language so that their existence and purpose may be archived. > >> > >> The language will provide for the definition of a transport-independent > >> information model so as to allow a variety of implementation-specific > >> technologies to be derived from a single definition. To demonstrate > >> this, the working group will define two technology specific transport > >> mappings: one for SNMP, and one for COPS. > >> > >> The language will also provide: > >> > >> - syntax optimized for parseability, human readability, & non-redundancy > >> > >> - conventions for representing inheritance and containment of defined > >> data > >> > >> - enhanced attribute-level and association-level constraints > >> > >> - a maximal amount of machine-parseable syntax so that programmatic > >> tools can aid in modeling and implementation > >> > >> - a language extension capability > >> > >> This working group will also define typical usage scenarios for the > >> language and highlight its features. Finally, it will develop a > >> framework by which reusable components specified using this language can > >> be registered and made readily available for continued reuse and > >> improvement. > >> > >> The working group will not define data models, except as required for > >> illustrative examples and the refactoring of existing data models. > >> Specific data models are to be developed by the subject matter experts > >> using the SMIng in the appropriate technology specific WGs. > >> > > > > - -- - --- David Harrington Network Management Standards Architect dbh@enterasys.com Office of the CTO +1 603 337 2614 - voice Enterasys Networks +1 603 332 1524 - fax Rochester NH, USA ------- End of forwarded message ------- Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05916 for nmrg-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:02:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.83]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05911 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 08:02:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dperkins-nb1 ([24.15.219.251]) by femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001023060133.LTIV4464.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@dperkins-nb1>; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:01:33 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20001022230013.00afdf10@mail.scruznet.com> X-Sender: dperkins@mail.scruznet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:04:50 -0700 To: "Andrea Westerinen" , "Dan Romascanu" , , From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming Cc: , , "Network Management Research Group" In-Reply-To: References: <15F58915DF84D311AC7D0090279AA614233F02@itc-eml2.lannet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 5537 Lines: 131 HI, I did not see dan's original message. It contains a typo, in which is calls the SMIng work SMICng. I've asked the IESG to please rename this work if it goes forward to something other than SMIng, because of the one letter difference between it and SMICng, which is a commercial product. I suggest another name, such as SMIv3, be used instead of SMIng. Regards, /david t. perkins At 01:44 PM 10/22/2000 -0700, Andrea Westerinen wrote: >Dan, On your second question, I read the charter as "providing for" an >information model, not doing it. However, this needs to be much clearer. >Mixing the definition of a language with the definition of an information >model (that is expressed in the language) is mixing apples and oranges. > >Andrea > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-nim@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-nim@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Dan >Romascanu >Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:39 AM >To: mibs@ops.ietf.org; 'rap@ops.ietf.org' >Cc: new-work@ietf.org; 'nim@ops.ietf.org' >Subject: RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming > > >I apologize for the cross-posting, but this being a new work not directly >emerged from any of the existing activities, but obviously connected with >them, I have a hard time finding the appropriate list. > >I have two questions: > >* when the charter says 'The objective is to replace both the SMIv2 >and the SPPI with a single merged language for defining information for the >monitoring, configuration, and provisioning of network devices' what does >replace mean? Is the intended work targeting the standards track, and SPPI >and SMIv2 will one day become historical? (I actually do not know what is >the resolution about the status of SPPI ) >* The third paragraph talks about a 'transport independent information >model'. How does this relate to NIM? NIM started to discuss about such a >model, and seems to have got stuck in a dispute about the language. It looks >like smicng has taken a shortcut and decided that it has the answer to the >nim dilemma and found the appropriate language that nim could not agree >upon. > >These questions are intended to clarify the relationship between the >different pieces of work in the area. I think such a work is really needed - >do we have the will and bandwidth to execute it? > >Regards, > >Dan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The IESG [SMTP:iesg-secretary@ietf.org] >> Sent: Fri October 20 2000 15:16 >> To: IETF-Announce; @loki.ietf.org@ihrh2.emsr.lucent.com >> Cc: new-work@ietf.org >> Subject: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming >> >> 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: >> >> Next Generation Structure of Management Informatio (sming) >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Current Status: Proposed Working Group >> >> Description of Working Group: >> >> This working group shall develop a standards-track specification for the >> next generation data definition language for specifying network >> management data. The language will be based on the SMIng developed in >> the IRTF Network Management Research Group. SMIng represents a superset >> of the SMIv2 (Structure of Management Information v2) and the SPPI >> (Structure of Policy Provisioning Information). The objective is to >> replace both the SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single, merged language for >> defining information for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning >> of network devices. >> >> >> The language developed will enable the modeling of network management >> information in a manner that provides the benefits of object-oriented >> design. To achieve this, the language must allow the design of highly >> reusable syntactic/semantic components (templates) that can be reused by >> multiple IETF working groups for convenience, consistency, and to >> maximize interoperability in device management. A registration mechanism >> will also be described for reusable components defined using the >> language so that their existence and purpose may be archived. >> >> The language will provide for the definition of a transport-independent >> information model so as to allow a variety of implementation-specific >> technologies to be derived from a single definition. To demonstrate >> this, the working group will define two technology specific transport >> mappings: one for SNMP, and one for COPS. >> >> The language will also provide: >> >> - syntax optimized for parseability, human readability, & non-redundancy >> >> - conventions for representing inheritance and containment of defined >> data >> >> - enhanced attribute-level and association-level constraints >> >> - a maximal amount of machine-parseable syntax so that programmatic >> tools can aid in modeling and implementation >> >> - a language extension capability >> >> This working group will also define typical usage scenarios for the >> language and highlight its features. Finally, it will develop a >> framework by which reusable components specified using this language can >> be registered and made readily available for continued reuse and >> improvement. >> >> The working group will not define data models, except as required for >> illustrative examples and the refactoring of existing data models. >> Specific data models are to be developed by the subject matter experts >> using the SMIng in the appropriate technology specific WGs. >> > > Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18244 for nmrg-outgoing; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:41:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cisco.com (sigma.cisco.com [171.69.63.142]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18239 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:41:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from andreawlap (sj-dial-4-14.cisco.com [171.68.181.143]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA08031; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:39:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrea Westerinen" To: "Dan Romascanu" , , Cc: , , "Network Management Research Group" Subject: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:44:08 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <15F58915DF84D311AC7D0090279AA614233F02@itc-eml2.lannet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 4978 Lines: 116 Dan, On your second question, I read the charter as "providing for" an information model, not doing it. However, this needs to be much clearer. Mixing the definition of a language with the definition of an information model (that is expressed in the language) is mixing apples and oranges. Andrea -----Original Message----- From: owner-nim@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-nim@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Dan Romascanu Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:39 AM To: mibs@ops.ietf.org; 'rap@ops.ietf.org' Cc: new-work@ietf.org; 'nim@ops.ietf.org' Subject: RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming I apologize for the cross-posting, but this being a new work not directly emerged from any of the existing activities, but obviously connected with them, I have a hard time finding the appropriate list. I have two questions: * when the charter says 'The objective is to replace both the SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single merged language for defining information for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning of network devices' what does replace mean? Is the intended work targeting the standards track, and SPPI and SMIv2 will one day become historical? (I actually do not know what is the resolution about the status of SPPI ) * The third paragraph talks about a 'transport independent information model'. How does this relate to NIM? NIM started to discuss about such a model, and seems to have got stuck in a dispute about the language. It looks like smicng has taken a shortcut and decided that it has the answer to the nim dilemma and found the appropriate language that nim could not agree upon. These questions are intended to clarify the relationship between the different pieces of work in the area. I think such a work is really needed - do we have the will and bandwidth to execute it? Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: The IESG [SMTP:iesg-secretary@ietf.org] > Sent: Fri October 20 2000 15:16 > To: IETF-Announce; @loki.ietf.org@ihrh2.emsr.lucent.com > Cc: new-work@ietf.org > Subject: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming > > 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: > > Next Generation Structure of Management Informatio (sming) > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Current Status: Proposed Working Group > > Description of Working Group: > > This working group shall develop a standards-track specification for the > next generation data definition language for specifying network > management data. The language will be based on the SMIng developed in > the IRTF Network Management Research Group. SMIng represents a superset > of the SMIv2 (Structure of Management Information v2) and the SPPI > (Structure of Policy Provisioning Information). The objective is to > replace both the SMIv2 and the SPPI with a single, merged language for > defining information for the monitoring, configuration, and provisioning > of network devices. > > > The language developed will enable the modeling of network management > information in a manner that provides the benefits of object-oriented > design. To achieve this, the language must allow the design of highly > reusable syntactic/semantic components (templates) that can be reused by > multiple IETF working groups for convenience, consistency, and to > maximize interoperability in device management. A registration mechanism > will also be described for reusable components defined using the > language so that their existence and purpose may be archived. > > The language will provide for the definition of a transport-independent > information model so as to allow a variety of implementation-specific > technologies to be derived from a single definition. To demonstrate > this, the working group will define two technology specific transport > mappings: one for SNMP, and one for COPS. > > The language will also provide: > > - syntax optimized for parseability, human readability, & non-redundancy > > - conventions for representing inheritance and containment of defined > data > > - enhanced attribute-level and association-level constraints > > - a maximal amount of machine-parseable syntax so that programmatic > tools can aid in modeling and implementation > > - a language extension capability > > This working group will also define typical usage scenarios for the > language and highlight its features. Finally, it will develop a > framework by which reusable components specified using this language can > be registered and made readily available for continued reuse and > improvement. > > The working group will not define data models, except as required for > illustrative examples and the refactoring of existing data models. > Specific data models are to be developed by the subject matter experts > using the SMIng in the appropriate technology specific WGs. > Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA17780 for nmrg-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:58:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA17772; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:58:53 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id VAA27750; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:58:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:58:52 +0200 Message-Id: <200010201958.VAA27750@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] Ben was born this morning Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 643 Lines: 18 My son Ben arrived this morning. He arrived nearly six weeks ahead of schedule. He is doing OK, but he has to stay some time at the hospital just to be sure that his lungs etc. function correctly. This news probably better explains why I was so aggressively pushing the September NMRG meeting and why I asked Aiko to chair the upcoming December meeting. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23828 for nmrg-outgoing; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:37:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23819; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:37:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id KAA16169; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:37:23 +0200 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:37:23 +0200 Message-Id: <200010180837.KAA16169@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: dperkins@dsperkins.com CC: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de In-reply-to: <4.1.20001017131813.00a4c100@mail.scruznet.com> (dperkins@dsperkins.com) Subject: Re: [nmrg] Next meeting References: <4.1.20001017131813.00a4c100@mail.scruznet.com> Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 387 Lines: 12 >>>>> David T Perkins writes: David> Are the plans coming together? I would like to be able to David> attend and scheduling is key. I am trying to get the host in Austin finalized. Once this is done (hopefully by the end of this week), I will actually hand the organization of this meeting over to Aiko Pras since it is unclear whether I am able to travel to the US in December. /js Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28378 for nmrg-outgoing; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:17:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from baxter.tollbridgetech.com (host120-106.tollbridgetech.com [205.178.120.106] (may be forged)) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA28372 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:17:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from DPERKINS-NB1 ([10.2.254.25]) by baxter.tollbridgetech.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id R6BLKJVD; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:17:33 -0700 Message-Id: <4.1.20001017131813.00a4c100@mail.scruznet.com> X-Sender: dperkins@mail.scruznet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:19:57 -0700 To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: [nmrg] Next meeting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 120 Lines: 7 HI, Are the plans coming together? I would like to be able to attend and scheduling is key. Regards /david t. perkins Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25538 for nmrg-outgoing; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:42:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from icasun1.epfl.ch (root@icasun1.epfl.ch [128.178.151.148]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25534 for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:42:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ica.epfl.ch (jpmf@tcomhp33.epfl.ch [128.178.151.24]) by icasun1.epfl.ch (8.8.X/EPFL-8.1d for ICA) with ESMTP id SAA05509; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:42:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200010161642.SAA05509@icasun1.epfl.ch> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Cc: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" Subject: Re: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:21:14 METDST." <200010021621.SAA07398@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:42:31 +0200 Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 850 Lines: 23 Sorry for the late answer, I was away. On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:21:14 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Aiko is also involved in the IM 2001 organization (as are others on > this list) and he therefore has to attend the IM 2001 TPC meeting > after the DSOM workshop. So the only way to make this meeting happen > in December is to reduce travel time by holding the meeting in Austin > instead of San Jose. No. In your email dated Aug. 15, you showed that we could schedule the NMRG meeting on Dec. 8-9, between the IM 2001 TPC meeting and the IETF meeting. This solution demands a lot of traveling but it is possible. > Please let us know what you think about the proposal to move the > meeting from San Jose to Austin. Both Austin and San Jose are fine with me. BTW, as Aiko, I will attend the IM 2001 TPC meeting in Austin. Jean-Philippe Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09684 for nmrg-outgoing; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:02:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09671; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:02:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id IAA22385; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:02:45 +0200 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:02:45 +0200 Message-Id: <200010040602.IAA22385@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: dharrington@mediaone.net CC: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de In-reply-to: <39D8DABE.B21A6ADD@enterasys.com> (message from David Harrington on Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:58:06 -0600) Subject: Re: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December References: <200010021621.SAA07398@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> <39D8DABE.B21A6ADD@enterasys.com> Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 603 Lines: 19 >>>>> David Harrington writes: David> I am of the impression that San Jose was chosen by our David> sponsor. Will Cisco still sponsor if it is relocated to Austin? I don't think so. Our idea was to get a meeting room from the University which also hosts the DSOM meeting. We will negotiate the details next week. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA02893 for nmrg-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:37:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cisco.com (sigma.cisco.com [171.69.63.142]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA02885; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:37:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from andreawlap (dhcp-128-107-131-119.cisco.com [128.107.131.119]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA14660; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:36:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrea Westerinen" To: , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" Cc: "Network Management Research Group" Subject: RE: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:40:52 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <39D8DABE.B21A6ADD@enterasys.com> Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1993 Lines: 57 Sorry, I/Cisco can't host this in Austin. However, I could still attend. Andrea -----Original Message----- From: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [mailto:owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]On Behalf Of David Harrington Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 11:58 AM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Cc: Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December I am of the impression that San Jose was chosen by our sponsor. Will Cisco still sponsor if it is relocated to Austin? dbh Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Background: > > We earlier discussed to hold a meeting on December 8-9 2000 between > the DSOM in Austin (TX) and the IETF in San Diego (CA). Andrea > Westerinen was willing to host meeting in San Jose. Bert Wijnen > already asked whether the traveling overhead (Austing -> San Jose -> > San Diego) could not be minimized. > > News: > > Since it is unclear whether I am able to travel to the US in December, > I asked Aiko Pras to chair this meeting. Aiko > agreed to it and is now be responsible for organizing things. > > Aiko is also involved in the IM 2001 organization (as are others on > this list) and he therefore has to attend the IM 2001 TPC meeting > after the DSOM workshop. So the only way to make this meeting happen > in December is to reduce travel time by holding the meeting in Austin > instead of San Jose. > > Please let us know what you think about the proposal to move the > meeting from San Jose to Austin. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig > Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks > Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany > Fax: +49 531 391 5936 -- --- David Harrington Network Management Standards Architect dbh@enterasys.com Office of the CTO +1 603 337 2614 - voice Enterasys Networks +1 603 332 1524 - fax Rochester NH, USA Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA16731 for nmrg-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:59:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ctron-dnm.ctron.com (firewall-user@ctron-dnm.cabletron.com [12.25.1.120]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA16715; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:59:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA04230; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roc-mail2.ctron.com(134.141.72.230) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com via smap (4.1) id xma004217; Mon, 2 Oct 00 15:03:22 -0400 Received: from ctron-exc1.ctron.com (ctron-exc1.ctron.com [134.141.77.90]) by roc-mail2.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08747; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ctron-exc1.ctron.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ctron-exc1.ctron.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id TRQ9RS27; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:58:21 -0400 Received: from 10.8.9.91 by ctron-exc1.ctron.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:58:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <39D8DABE.B21A6ADD@enterasys.com> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:58:06 -0600 From: David Harrington Reply-To: dharrington@mediaone.net Organization: Enterasys Networks X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder CC: Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December References: <200010021621.SAA07398@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1630 Lines: 44 I am of the impression that San Jose was chosen by our sponsor. Will Cisco still sponsor if it is relocated to Austin? dbh Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Background: > > We earlier discussed to hold a meeting on December 8-9 2000 between > the DSOM in Austin (TX) and the IETF in San Diego (CA). Andrea > Westerinen was willing to host meeting in San Jose. Bert Wijnen > already asked whether the traveling overhead (Austing -> San Jose -> > San Diego) could not be minimized. > > News: > > Since it is unclear whether I am able to travel to the US in December, > I asked Aiko Pras to chair this meeting. Aiko > agreed to it and is now be responsible for organizing things. > > Aiko is also involved in the IM 2001 organization (as are others on > this list) and he therefore has to attend the IM 2001 TPC meeting > after the DSOM workshop. So the only way to make this meeting happen > in December is to reduce travel time by holding the meeting in Austin > instead of San Jose. > > Please let us know what you think about the proposal to move the > meeting from San Jose to Austin. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig > Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks > Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany > Fax: +49 531 391 5936 -- --- David Harrington Network Management Standards Architect dbh@enterasys.com Office of the CTO +1 603 337 2614 - voice Enterasys Networks +1 603 332 1524 - fax Rochester NH, USA Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12949 for nmrg-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:49:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl [130.89.10.247]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12941; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:49:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cs.utwente.nl (utip074.cs.utwente.nl [130.89.12.43]) by utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01069; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:49:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <39D8CA88.21CAF4FB@cs.utwente.nl> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:48:56 +0200 From: Ron Sprenkels Organization: University of Twente X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder CC: Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December References: <200010021621.SAA07398@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 656 Lines: 20 Juergen, > We earlier discussed to hold a meeting on December 8-9 2000 between > the DSOM in Austin (TX) and the IETF in San Diego (CA). > Please let us know what you think about the proposal to move the > meeting from San Jose to Austin. As things are looking now, I most likely won't be able to attend this NMRG meeting, unfortunately. cu, Ron. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Sprenkels sprenkel@cs.utwente.nl http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~sprenkel University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, TSS Management group P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. (Tel. +31 53 489 4663) Return-Path: Received: by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07320 for nmrg-outgoing; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:21:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (schoenw@henkell [134.169.34.191]) by mumm.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07312; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:21:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from schoenw@localhost by henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.7.6/tubsibr) id SAA07398; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:21:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:21:14 +0200 Message-Id: <200010021621.SAA07398@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] 8th NMRG meeting in December Sender: owner-nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Precedence: bulk Status: O Content-Length: 1202 Lines: 33 Background: We earlier discussed to hold a meeting on December 8-9 2000 between the DSOM in Austin (TX) and the IETF in San Diego (CA). Andrea Westerinen was willing to host meeting in San Jose. Bert Wijnen already asked whether the traveling overhead (Austing -> San Jose -> San Diego) could not be minimized. News: Since it is unclear whether I am able to travel to the US in December, I asked Aiko Pras to chair this meeting. Aiko agreed to it and is now be responsible for organizing things. Aiko is also involved in the IM 2001 organization (as are others on this list) and he therefore has to attend the IM 2001 TPC meeting after the DSOM workshop. So the only way to make this meeting happen in December is to reduce travel time by holding the meeting in Austin instead of San Jose. Please let us know what you think about the proposal to move the meeting from San Jose to Austin. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936