Received: from mta1n.bluewin.ch (mta1n.bluewin.ch [195.186.1.210]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2R7pYn5011595 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:51:35 +0100 Received: from ieee.org (213.3.48.139) by mta1n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.040) id 3C9F6560000C740D for nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:51:29 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA179F2.6040906@ieee.org> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:51:14 +0100 From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Network Management Research Group Subject: Re: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa References: <200203122040.g2CKelO30108@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> <3C8F4EEC.2862BC81@tecsiel.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Please note that the phone number of Hotel D'Azeglio is +39/050/500310 and that they do not have non-smoking rooms. Luca found two hotels with non-smoking rooms: - business hotel: Hotel Cavalieri (ph. +39/050/43290 - fax +39/050/502242), EUR 139 per night - touristic hotel: S.Croce in Fossabanda, (ph. +39/050/970911 - fax +39/050/9711044), EUR ~62 per night JP Luca Deri wrote: > Hi all, > I have received some emails regarding the accommodation in Pisa. I have > asked around. If you want you can book at Hotel D'Azeglio (Ph. > +39/050/500510 Fax +39/050/28017) that's a 4 stars hotel in the center > of Pisa. The special price for NETikos is 80 Euro per night: please > mention that you have a meeting here for getting this price. > > Flight connections: you can fly from US -> Milan -> Pisa. There are > direct flights operated by Alitalia from Milan to Pisa. For a timetable > look at http://www.alitalia.it/. Then from Pisa you can go to Florence > (the Hotel d'Azeglio is close to the train station) by train: the ticket > costs 4.70 Euros (1 way) and it will take less than 1 hour. > > Shall you have any problem while here, you can call me at my mobile > phone +39/347/34.61.768 > > I assume all know that since March 1st the Italian currency is Euro (no > Liras anymore). > > Further questions? > > Cheers, Luca Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2PFoWn5007680; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:50:32 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2PFoWE27224; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:50:32 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:50:32 +0100 Message-Id: <200203251550.g2PFoWE27224@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: internet-drafts@ietf.org CC: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] please post draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-08.txt Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Please post the following document are Internet Draft: Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2KFEG7V026340; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:14:16 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2KFEGF02563; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:14:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:14:16 +0100 Message-Id: <200203201514.g2KFEGF02563@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting agenda (draft) Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Below is a draft agenda for the upcoming NMRG meeting. Comments are welcome. I have not yet assigned time estimates - I first want to get feedback. Regarding time management, it would be nice to get feedback when we want to start on Friday and when we plan to end on Saturday. Is someone attending or giving tutorials on Friday? Or can we start earlier on Friday? When do people have to leave on Saturday? Some items below are marked (?) because they have no names assigned and I am looking for volunteers. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Agenda for the 10th NMRG Meeting (Pisa 2002): 1. Status Reports There are several documents we started and where we need to have status reports and develop a plan on how to proceed with them: - SNMP over TCP (Juergen Schoenwaelder) - SNMP Payload Compression (Juergen Schoenwaelder) - Subtree Retrieval (?) - Information Modeling vs. Data Modeling (Szabolcs Boros) Other activities what were or might be issues for the NMRG: - SMIng (Juergen Schoenwaelder / Frank Strauss) - SMI to XML and XML schema conversions (Frank Strauss) 2. Alarm Models The goal of this agenda item is to discuss and compare various existing and proposed alarm models. The focus is on the conceptual models being used, not on specific technical realisations of the models. - ITU Alarm Model(?) - IETF DISMAN Alarm Model (?) - CIM Alarm/Event Model (?) - Universal Alarm Model (?) 3. Network Management Visions There are quite some discussions going on in various places what the future (5-10 years) of network management will be. There are several different scenarios one can imagine and it might be worthwhile to develop a joint view of what the goals, influencing factors, dependencies and problems with various visions are. I would like to make an experiment: Each participant should think up one scenario and prepare a 5-10 minute presentation (1-2 slides) to describe the may ideas. Extreme positions are welcome - of course people should be able to defend their scenarios afterwards. - Presentation/Discussion of Scenarios (all) - Identification of impact factors (all) - Identification of research aspects (all) 4. Future of the NMRG We need to discuss whether the NMRG still works well or whether it is time to change its operational mode. Things to consider might be to invite new fresh people, to discuss future topics and research directions, or to revisit our current organization and mode of operation. Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2K8gH7V011601; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:42:17 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2K8gGD31057; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:42:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:42:16 +0100 Message-Id: <200203200842.g2K8gGD31057@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] snmp over tcp (again) Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I have updated an ID which defines generic transport address types yesterday. There is a somewhat pressing need in the IETF to get IPv6 definition standardized. Once this document moves forward (an I am an optimist in this case), there is no need anymore to define constants in the NMRG SNMP over TCP document. This has two major benefits: - We can remove the MIB module from the SNMP over TCP document and all the boilerplate stuff that goes with it, which actually saves a few pages of text. - We get IPv6 support for free. - The SNMP over TCP document does not contain any NMRG specific definitions anymore, making a progression to standards track simpler. I think it is worth to go this way and to submit another ID. This won't slow things down since the document is on hold until the IETF meeting this week is over. You can look at the updated SNMP over TCP document at: Please let me know quickly if someone happens to disagree with this approach. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2JJg47V010575; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:42:04 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2JJg4i22179; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:42:04 +0100 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:42:04 +0100 Message-Id: <200203191942.g2JJg4i22179@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] 10th meeting participants Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I had to update the list of expected people for the next meeting. Unfortunately, some people which I expected to attend can not make it due to various reaons. I have updated the meeting Web page. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Received: from jabber.tecsiel.it ([195.31.151.66]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2DD8BSp026536; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:08:14 +0100 Received: from tecsiel.it (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jabber.tecsiel.it (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00587; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:06:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C8F4EEC.2862BC81@tecsiel.it> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:06:52 +0100 From: Luca Deri Reply-To: l.deri@tecsiel.it Organization: NETikos S.p.A. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 i86pc) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder CC: Network Management Research Group , hellers@us.ibm.com, "David T. Perkins" Subject: Re: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa References: <200203122040.g2CKelO30108@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi all, I have received some emails regarding the accommodation in Pisa. I have asked around. If you want you can book at Hotel D'Azeglio (Ph. +39/050/500510 Fax +39/050/28017) that's a 4 stars hotel in the center of Pisa. The special price for NETikos is 80 Euro per night: please mention that you have a meeting here for getting this price. Flight connections: you can fly from US -> Milan -> Pisa. There are direct flights operated by Alitalia from Milan to Pisa. For a timetable look at http://www.alitalia.it/. Then from Pisa you can go to Florence (the Hotel d'Azeglio is close to the train station) by train: the ticket costs 4.70 Euros (1 way) and it will take less than 1 hour. Shall you have any problem while here, you can call me at my mobile phone +39/347/34.61.768 I assume all know that since March 1st the Italian currency is Euro (no Liras anymore). Further questions? Cheers, Luca Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > We got the final OK from our how NETikos that the meeting can take > place in Pisa. Luca provided some additional information which I have > put on the meeting web page: > > http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/meetings/2002/pisa/ > > We know need to finalize the agenda. I will workout a proposal from > the various emails I have seen and then you can all beat it up. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder > > -- > !! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list. > !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or adjust > !! your settings, send a mail message to > !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. -- Luca Deri NETikos S.p.A. Via Matteucci 34/B 56124 Pisa, Italy. Ph. +39/050/968.639 Fax. +39/050/968.626 Personal: luca@lucaderi.org Business: luca.deri@netikos.com WWW: http://www.lucaderi.org/ ICQ: 68183632 Hacker: someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it - Richard Stallman Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g2CKelSp027572; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:40:47 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2CKelO30108; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:40:47 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:40:47 +0100 Message-Id: <200203122040.g2CKelO30108@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Network Management Research Group CC: hellers@us.ibm.com Subject: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: We got the final OK from our how NETikos that the meeting can take place in Pisa. Luca provided some additional information which I have put on the meeting web page: http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/meetings/2002/pisa/ We know need to finalize the agenda. I will workout a proposal from the various emails I have seen and then you can all beat it up. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g28FLTCE000356; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:21:29 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g28FLTH13805; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:21:29 +0100 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:21:29 +0100 Message-Id: <200203081521.g28FLTH13805@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: dbh@enterasys.com CC: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de In-reply-to: <0BF8B32B723ED5119E0B0002A551748B0305457E@corp-exc3.ctron.com> (dbh@enterasys.com) Subject: Re: [nmrg] next meeting location References: <0BF8B32B723ED5119E0B0002A551748B0305457E@corp-exc3.ctron.com> Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> Harrington, David writes: Dave> I plan to attend. I'd like to have confirmation that the Dave> meeting is April 19-20 in Pisa. The meeting will be April 19-20 in Pisa. I am waiting for more info from our host. Once I have it, I will setup and announce a web page with all the details. I will comment on the agenda discussions in another email. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Received: from riverstonenet.com (mail.riverstonenet.com [63.113.148.10]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g26MNCMS015405 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:23:12 +0100 Received: from dperkins-nb2.dsperkins.com by riverstonenet.com (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4-Yago) id OAA13092; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:22:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20020306141251.030593d0@mail4.bayarea.net> X-Sender: dperkins@mail4.bayarea.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:21:52 -0800 To: "Harrington, David" , Network Management Research Group From: "David T. Perkins" Subject: RE: [nmrg] next meeting location In-Reply-To: <0BF8B32B723ED5119E0B0002A551748B0305457E@corp-exc3.ctron.c om> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_54057000==_.ALT" Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: --=====================_54057000==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" HI, The work in the DISMAN group on alarms is fatally flawed. They have missed the fundamentals. This event has the possibility of bringing together a set of people that can make a difference. I do not believe that there is a solid book, article, paper, etc that ties it all together. If you believe differently, then point me to them. The convergence of the Entity MIB model and the ITU-T models is a real world problem that needs work. It is not being addressed in the IETF, and I doubt that it is being addressed in the ITU-T. Progressed would be greatly appreciated. Both of these issues are important, and have some possibility of progress being made. At 04:52 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote: >Hi, > >I plan to attend. >I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is April 19-20 in Pisa. > >Regarding the agenda, >Dave Perkins: alarms & alarm management >Dave Perkins: convergence of entity mib model and M.3100 models >Jean-Philippe: update on universal information modeling >Juergen: Why is network management different? > >It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions engineered in the IETF. > >I generally consider that problems already being addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, especially a group that doesn't develop either set of standards. > >As a result, I'm concerned about spending time discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that discussion be held by the NMRG. > >There is an increasingly proposed use of XML information modeling for sharing information between applications (including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet coalesced into something that can be engineered. > >As a result, I find myself most interested in having the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for solutions, like how do we continue to make information modeling part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? "Why is network management different?", is there anything more than smoke and mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? > >Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the issues well enough to start engineering solutions. > >dbh > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM >> To: Network Management Research Group >> Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location >> >> >> >> Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting - would it be a problem >> for you if we move the meeting from Florence to Pisa? >> >> Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make the logistics a bit >> simpler. >> >> Please drop me a note. >> >> /js >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck >> Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science >> Phone: +49 541 969 2483 Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany >> Fax: +49 541 969 2770 <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/> >> Regards, /david t. perkins --=====================_54057000==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" HI,

The work in the DISMAN group on alarms is fatally flawed. They have missed
the fundamentals. This event has the possibility of bringing together
a set of people that can make a difference. I do not believe that there
is a solid book, article, paper, etc that ties it all together.
If you believe differently, then point me to them.

The convergence of the Entity MIB model and the ITU-T models is a real
world problem that needs work. It is not being addressed in the IETF,
and I doubt that it is being addressed in the ITU-T. Progressed would
be greatly appreciated.

Both of these issues are important, and have some possibility of
progress being made.

At 04:52 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:
Hi,

I plan to attend.
I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is April 19-20 in Pisa.

Regarding the agenda,
Dave Perkins:   alarms & alarm management
Dave Perkins:   convergence of entity mib model and M.3100 models
Jean-Philippe:  update on universal information modeling
Juergen:          Why is network management different?

It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions engineered in the IETF.

I generally consider that problems already being addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, especially a group that doesn't develop either set of standards.

As a result, I'm concerned about spending time discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that discussion be held by the NMRG.

There is an increasingly proposed use of XML information modeling for sharing information between applications (including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet coalesced into something that can be engineered.

As a result, I find myself most interested in having the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for solutions, like  how do we continue to make information modeling part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? "Why is network management different?", is there anything more than smoke and mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators?

Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the issues well enough to start engineering solutions.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: Network Management Research Group
> Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location
>
>
>
> Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting - would it be a problem
> for you if we move the meeting from Florence to Pisa?
>
> Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make the logistics a bit
> simpler.
>
> Please drop me a note.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      University of Osnabrueck
> <schoenw@inf.uos.de>       Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Phone: +49 541 969 2483    Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
> Fax:   +49 541 969 2770    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/>
>

Regards,
/david t. perkins --=====================_54057000==_.ALT-- Received: from ctron-dnm.ctron.com (firewall-user@ctron-dnm.enterasys.com [12.25.1.120]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g26LrwMS014455; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:53:59 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA20615; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:03:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from cnc-exc2(134.141.77.103) by ctron-dnm.ctron.com via smap (4.1) id xma020572; Wed, 6 Mar 02 17:03:32 -0500 Received: by smtp.enterasys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:52:49 -0500 Message-ID: <0BF8B32B723ED5119E0B0002A551748B0305457E@corp-exc3.ctron.com> From: "Harrington, David" To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" , Network Management Research Group Subject: RE: [nmrg] next meeting location Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:52:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960" Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960 Content-Type: text/plain Hi, I plan to attend. I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is April 19-20 in Pisa. Regarding the agenda, Dave Perkins: alarms & alarm management Dave Perkins: convergence of entity mib model and M.3100 models Jean-Philippe: update on universal information modeling Juergen: Why is network management different? It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions engineered in the IETF. I generally consider that problems already being addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, especially a group that doesn't develop either set of standards. As a result, I'm concerned about spending time discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that discussion be held by the NMRG. There is an increasingly proposed use of XML information modeling for sharing information between applications (including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet coalesced into something that can be engineered. As a result, I find myself most interested in having the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for solutions, like how do we continue to make information modeling part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? "Why is network management different?", is there anything more than smoke and mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the issues well enough to start engineering solutions. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM > To: Network Management Research Group > Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location > > > > Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting - would it be a problem > for you if we move the meeting from Florence to Pisa? > > Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make the logistics a bit > simpler. > > Please drop me a note. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck > Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science > Phone: +49 541 969 2483 Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany > Fax: +49 541 969 2770 > > > -- > !! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list. > !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To > unsubscribe or adjust > !! your settings, send a mail message to > > !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [nmrg] next meeting location

Hi,

I plan to attend.
I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is = April 19-20 in Pisa.

Regarding the agenda,
Dave Perkins:   alarms & alarm = management
Dave Perkins:   convergence of entity mib = model and M.3100 models
Jean-Philippe:  update on universal information = modeling
Juergen:          = Why is network management different?

It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to = better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to = establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into = units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions = engineered in the IETF.

I generally consider that problems already being = addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in = the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF = research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF = alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the = entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the = need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, = especially a group that doesn't develop either set of = standards.

As a result, I'm concerned about spending time = discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a = group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the = viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery = together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of = the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their = specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to = attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having = a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange = to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that = discussion be held by the NMRG.

There is an increasingly proposed use of XML = information modeling for sharing information between applications = (including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web = services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. = Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not = meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet = coalesced into something that can be engineered.

As a result, I find myself most interested in having = the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for = solutions, like  how do we continue to make information modeling = part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by = the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? "Why is network = management different?", is there anything more than smoke and = mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services = approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? =

Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions = have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions = in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions = in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the = issues well enough to start engineering solutions.

dbh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM
> To: Network Management Research Group
> Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location
>
>
>
> Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting = - would it be a problem
> for you if we move the meeting from Florence to = Pisa?
>
> Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make = the logistics a bit
> simpler.
>
> Please drop me a note.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen = Schoenwaelder      University of = Osnabrueck
> = <schoenw@inf.uos.de>       Dept. of = Mathematics and Computer Science
> Phone: +49 541 969 2483    = Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
> Fax:   +49 541 969 = 2770    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/>
>
>
> --
> !! This message is brought to you via the = `nmrg' mailing list.
> !! Please do not reply to this message to = unsubscribe. To
> unsubscribe or adjust
> !! your settings, send a mail message to =
> <nmrg-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.=
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960-- Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g24HItFb022208; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:18:56 +0100 Received: from jet.isi.edu (jet.isi.edu [128.9.160.87]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g24HIst06561; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:18:54 -0800 (PST) From: RFC Editor Received: (from rfc-ed@localhost) by jet.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id RAA14481; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:18:54 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:18:54 GMT Message-Id: <200203041718.RAA14481@jet.isi.edu> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Subject: [nmrg] Re: SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC) Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Greetings, We apologize for the inconvenience, but the IESG will not be available to review your document until after the IETF proceedings. For this reason, the RFC Editor will not be sending any documents to the IESG for review until (25 March 2002). Please note that you do NOT need to resubmit your document. Thank you for your understanding. RFC Editor > From rfc-ed@ISI.EDU Mon Mar 4 06:19:44 2002 > Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:36 +0100 > X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > CC: Network Management Research Group > Subject: SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC) > X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 > Content-Length: 651 > > > I would like to ask you to publish > > Title : SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping > Author(s) : J. Schoenwaelder > Filename : draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-07.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 28-Feb-02 > > as an Experimental RFC. This document has been produced by the Network > Management Research Group (NMRG) of the IRTF. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck > Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science > Phone: +49 541 969 2483 Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany > Fax: +49 541 969 2770 > > Received: from haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (IDENT:root@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de [134.169.34.84]) by agitator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -2) with ESMTP id g24EJb4R013087; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:37 +0100 Received: (from schoenw@localhost) by haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g24EJaB17060; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:36 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:36 +0100 Message-Id: <200203041419.g24EJaB17060@haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de using -f From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org CC: Network Management Research Group Subject: [nmrg] SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC) Sender: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Errors-To: nmrg-admin@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: I would like to ask you to publish Title : SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping Author(s) : J. Schoenwaelder Filename : draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-07.txt Pages : 13 Date : 28-Feb-02 as an Experimental RFC. This document has been produced by the Network Management Research Group (NMRG) of the IRTF. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science Phone: +49 541 969 2483 Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany Fax: +49 541 969 2770