Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3DI4gGW032697 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:04:47 +0200 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 78so501593ugn for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=MVG04+pe3Nb/cwu+0Stjoue/iSL4729jlPVSWLcomlo/1TTvdTHv5wQq4kGyVjfafx2at1N4Qz37lUGxUGF4dx8lg9RwkPM1vsst1cqQ1omxqZi86WRbkpAEQKtGj/ZU0OSk07S6XzDU4z51CX24YQ9EbSSQlIGgB0+/rjGOgPs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=D/vGKLc0LLS69PRK8NihgLniAx3ELtAj1Gmya9sahZzfqos/6orM9PnNvi0wk4dGZ/YE2k6rs2/aB5myULuKI6CMJDoShnJ9HXKKOxSBhzQlJpIStmoZnA7h/nh1rOthpG/FQ0v2dZrAJ2LiXhnMIhRghZ6vbXNGnKz900pbnnI= Received: by 10.66.232.11 with SMTP id e11mr2156458ugh.1176487481877; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?137.208.224.46? ( [137.208.224.46]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y37sm5490263iky.2007.04.13.11.04.37; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <461FC612.5080606@wu-wien.ac.at> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:04:02 +0200 From: Michael Alexander User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Windows/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ops-area@ietf.org, mib2rdml@ietf.org, nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, meta-model@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Michael Alexander X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.068 () BAYES_50,RCVD_BY_IP X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] IETF68 Follow-Up: NE/Facilities/Lines/Protocols/Services Data Modeling X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:04:49 -0000 In follow-up to the IETF 68 Mini-BOF on NE/Facilities/Lines/Protocols/Services Data Modeling: Effort Summary: =============== Modeling network of network elements (NE), facilities, lines, protocols and services for substantially easing development and operation of element manager systems (EMS), network management systems (NMS) and operations support systems (OSS). The framework is independent of the access method used, including SNMP, CLI, Netconf, Corba, CMIP, XML-RPC, etc.) It covers configuration, alarms, current-historical performance, accounting management and security. The frameworks builds on and reuses the existing base of MIBs. Effort Sub-Projects: ==================== - Namespaces - Object Model - Base Meta Model - Alarm Template Base Meta Model - Device/Line/Service/Protocol Class Meta Model - Device/Line/Service/Protocol Type Meta Model - Device/Line/Service/Protocol Model - MIB Transformation - Model Instances three devices, one line type, one protocol and one service. Draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexan-datamod-00.txt ppt: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4/opsarea-4.ppt Next Steps: =========== This is a complex project which needs the cooperation of multiple foci in order to produce meta models and namespaces which very substantially decrease the burden of building EMS/NMS/OSSs and model protocols, devices etc. At this stage there has been a fair amount of interest for: - creating a base meta model (language) - and to a lesser extent an object model Skill that is in definite need is for: - Device Class Specialists: (IP-Router, ATM, SONET/SDH, IP PBX etc.) - Protocol Specialists: e.g. BGP, OSPF, SIP, MPLS - Service Specialists: eg. SIP IP Voice Provided the necessary skill comes together, and a structure is built that supports the required interaction for a layered modeling effort, a full BoF towards a Data Modeling WG at either at IETF69 or 70 would be targeted. FP7 Filing: =========== There has been substantial interest from many parties in the filing of this as an EU framework project 7 (FP7) project. The targeted filing budget sum would exceed EUR 8 Million. The number of participants would be >20, and can be from all over the world (NOT only the EU). Please send me an email if you or your organization is interested in participating. Please use the list meta-model@ietf.org for discussion. Best Regards, Dr. Michael Alexander WU Wien Dept. of Information Systems malexand@wu-wien.ac.at / +43.1.31336.4467 GSM +43.699.1228.3586 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3DGd9HX026077 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:39:15 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2007 12:39:01 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,408,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="3353317:sNHT8140158" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:38:20 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area Thread-Index: Acd9pzhQm687EVF1RV2xvp6F3c5w/QAPi1cwAAEdHiA= References: <0e4d01c77de5$f198bc50$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "David Harrington" , X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de id l3DGd9HX026077 Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org, nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, meta-model@ietf.org Subject: [nmrg] RE: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:39:17 -0000 This is the follow-up to one of the mini-BOFs in Prague http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4/sld1.htm. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:08 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); ops-area@ietf.org > Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; meta-model@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area > > What does meta-modeling cover? > > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:39 AM > > To: ops-area@ietf.org > > Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; meta-model@ietf.org > > Subject: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area > > > > Following the OPS area meetings and mini-BOF sessions in Prague we > > have created two new mail lists: > > > > meta-model@ietf.org - this list will focus on discussions about the > > need and requirements for a meta data model in the network > management > space > > and what the IETF should do on this respect > > > > mib2rdml@ietf.org - the list will discuss the need and requirements > of > > converting MIB modules into resource models for the SOA/Web > Services > > Management environment and work that should be done in the IETF in > > this field > > > > The two lists will create a framework for discussions and > > contributions for the respective subjects and will allow the > > operations and management community to debate the level of interest > > and what should be done respectively in the two fields. If you are > > interested please > subscribe > > and participate. > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPS-AREA mailing list > > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > > > > Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net (rwcrmhc14.comcast.net [216.148.227.154]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3DG8djm023093 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:08:45 +0200 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with SMTP id <20070413160832m1400ina4ge>; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:08:33 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , References: Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:08:13 -0400 Message-ID: <0e4d01c77de5$f198bc50$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acd9pzhQm687EVF1RV2xvp6F3c5w/QAPi1cw X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 1.615 (*) BAYES_50,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org, nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, meta-model@ietf.org Subject: [nmrg] RE: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:08:48 -0000 What does meta-modeling cover? dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:39 AM > To: ops-area@ietf.org > Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; meta-model@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area > > Following the OPS area meetings and mini-BOF sessions in > Prague we have > created two new mail lists: > > meta-model@ietf.org - this list will focus on discussions > about the need > and requirements for a meta data model in the network management space > and what the IETF should do on this respect > > mib2rdml@ietf.org - the list will discuss the need and requirements of > converting MIB modules into resource models for the SOA/Web Services > Management environment and work that should be done in the > IETF in this > field > > The two lists will create a framework for discussions and > contributions > for the respective subjects and will allow the operations and > management > community to debate the level of interest and what should be done > respectively in the two fields. If you are interested please subscribe > and participate. > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3D8e5e1013580 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:40:10 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2007 04:39:58 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,406,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="3159588:sNHT53731008" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:39:17 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Mailing Lists in the OPS area Thread-Index: Acd9pzhQm687EVF1RV2xvp6F3c5w/Q== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de id l3D8e5e1013580 Cc: mib2rdml@ietf.org, nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, meta-model@ietf.org Subject: [nmrg] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:40:11 -0000 Following the OPS area meetings and mini-BOF sessions in Prague we have created two new mail lists: meta-model@ietf.org - this list will focus on discussions about the need and requirements for a meta data model in the network management space and what the IETF should do on this respect mib2rdml@ietf.org - the list will discuss the need and requirements of converting MIB modules into resource models for the SOA/Web Services Management environment and work that should be done in the IETF in this field The two lists will create a framework for discussions and contributions for the respective subjects and will allow the operations and management community to debate the level of interest and what should be done respectively in the two fields. If you are interested please subscribe and participate. Dan Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3CC0aLb008409 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:00:41 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2007 08:00:13 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,400,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="2721306:sNHT55814310" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:59:32 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Operations and Management Area Open Hour Calls Thread-Index: Acd8+gfH6aOrb3XeSmirednYz/Np7Q== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , , , , , "IETF MIBs" , X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de id l3CC0aLb008409 Subject: [nmrg] Operations and Management Area Open Hour Calls X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:00:45 -0000 Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu are holding Open Hours to discuss issues related to the IETF Operations and Management Area on the first and third Tuesday of each month at noon-1PM PT / 3-4PM ET / 9-10PM CET. All WG chairs, document editors, contributors, participants and in general all interested to talk with us about the area and IETF business are invited to ask for a meeting slot using the space below, and/or to write us directly at rbonica@juniper.net or dromasca@avaya.com. An e-mail will be sent in response to acknowledge the time slot and provide a telephone bridge number to be used in the call. The next OPS area open slots are: * Tue 4/17 PT CET 12-12:30pm 9-9:30pm 12:30-1pm 9:30-10pm Ron and Dan Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l3CBnBhi007069 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:49:16 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2007 07:49:04 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,400,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="2716172:sNHT10103100" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Received: from 300815erh2.post.avaya.com ([198.152.6.49]) by IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:20:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by 300815erh2.post.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l2TCKrQ3029018 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:53 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Received: from lists.ietf.org (HELO megatron.ietf.org) ([156.154.16.145]) by co300216-co-ierwest.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 08:23:58 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWtcQ-0000At-2E; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWtcO-00009p-HE; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:40 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWtcM-0000zj-Op; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:40 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2007 08:23:42 -0400 Received: from 300216erh2.post.avaya.com ([198.152.7.49]) by IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:03:25 +0200 Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by 300216erh2.post.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id l2RD2hjf000420 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:03:23 -0600 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([156.154.16.145]) by de307622-de-ieremea.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2007 09:03:22 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWBKP-0002cd-5Q; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:03:09 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWBKN-0002bm-7r; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:03:07 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWBKK-0000I7-Jc; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:03:07 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2007 09:05:31 -0400 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:48:23 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Minutes of the OPS Area open meetings in Prague - FINAL VERSION? Thread-Index: AcdwcCfEZyJt5bMOTaeTKpD3N4xYIQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , , "IETF MIBs" , , X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 3 (***) BAYES_95 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de id l3CBnBhi007069 Subject: [nmrg] Minutes of the OPS Area open meetings in Prague - FINAL VERSION? X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:49:18 -0000 Unless I missed some mails during my vacation, I did not record any further feedback to this version. Going once ... Going twice ... (but not later than this weekend, please) Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting 1 - Monday March 19, 2007 15:20 to 17:20 1. Meeting Administrivia 2. Introduction of new Area Director - Ron Bonica Dan - thanking David Kessens for his years of service as Area Director 3. Mini-BOF A: - Manageability and Operational Guidelines - David Harrington http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-1.ppt Discussions about the structure of the document - should the protocol evaluation be part of the document? 4. Mini-BOF B: COPS push mode policy configuration - Tom Taylor and Tina Tsou http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-3.ppt Sharon Chisholm: why COPS? because COPS is (apparently) going away Unidentified : working at the ITU-T, still some interest Kevin Johnson: in the draft, not quite clear if a new message was used. Tom: draft proposes a new message but could also use a flag, which is the less violent solution. Discussion of the collision of handles Dbh: there are two questions to answer. question 1: is COPS going away? Worth it? Little update in the industry. Should this be part of the manageability work (his mini-BOF)? Should we move COPS to experimental or not recommended? question 2: technical decision whether change is the right one? Scott Bradner: Answer Dave's first question. some enthusiasm for COPS at the beginning, then faded away. Interest in ITU. The ITU-T is using a few protocols including DIAMETER and COPS from the IETF that require some extensions. If another non-IETF group wants to use COPS, why stand in their way? Dave: "I can agree with that; somebody once said that the IETF doesn't produce standards, but technologies; other organizations produce standards" Dan (to Tom): what is your preferred solution? Tom: A standard document with the COPS update . ITU and IETF would progress this in parallel (approve in ITU-T as an annex), and then have IETF (tweak and) approve it, and then update ITU-T to reference the RFC. Scott: This parallel approach has been problematic in the past. It should either be done in ITU or in IETF, but not both. Tina: I think this can be done Dan: another approach is that the ITU-T can publish an Informational document. I do not want to take a position at this point. ITU should also consider what happens Dave Partain: I think there will be little energy to do this in the IETF, so it should be done in ITU. Bert: I do not know if COPS-PR is being used or not; I know I do not want to spend time working on COPS-PR. Is anybody interested in working on it (including review any work done by ITU?) Tom: Does anybody work for an organization that uses COPS-PR? One person raised their hands (Tina Tsou from Huawei) Tom: Is there any interest in working on COPS-PR extensions? Dan: these questions should be asked on the OPS lists and ITU lists. Should it be standards track? - the authors would like it so. Action item - Tom to address the ops-area list with query to determine status of implementation and deployment of COPS and COPS-PR and level of interest in participating in such a work 5. Mini-BOF C: Best Current Practices in Operations and Management - David Harrington http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-2.ppt Proposal to create operation capabilities working group, modeled on the experience of opsec WG Would bring in operators experience Framework document and operational guidelines as principal output Is opsec a success story? Straw poll indicates interest - continue discussion after the next item 6. Improved Efficiency of the OPS Area - proposal for the formation of a OPS Area WG - ADs David and Dan - create structure for OPS area, similar to the one existing in TSV and Routing Should it be merged with OPS and management capabilities WG as suggested by David H.? TSV chair - success in Transport due to multiple small items, no dominant item Straw poll indicates interest - nobody believes it's a bad idea, continue discussions in net meeting 7. Open Microphone Meeting 2 - Wednesday March 21, 2007 - 13:00 to 16:10 1. Meeting Administrivia ADs (total: 5 min) 2. Mini-BOF D: NE/facilities/lines/protocols/services data modeling - Michael Alexander http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4.ppt Scott Bradner - very complex, IETF not good history in this type of thing Pekka - benefit would go to NMS vendors? response - benefit to equipment vendors to get devices into NMSs Pekka - simpler version may be helpful, clean terminology would be helpful potential but current scope too big, maybe more fit to the IRTF Margret Wassermann - interesting, but what gets standardized? response - focus on meta models only xx - sim (info model) underway for 4 years - achieved meta view, now time to distribute to groups to use response - this proposal is much simpler than sim Chair: suggest create list & discuss issues raised in meeting, only one opposed 3. MIB-Doctor-sponsored MIB-document-writing template: David Harrington http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-8.ppt No discussions 4. Mini-BOF E: MIB module editing in XML : Emile Stephan http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-5.ppt Sharon - do you actually have tools to translate XML to MIBs? response - I'm proposing to edit the MIB in XML and use XSL transformation. Sharon - do you do SMI verification? Emile: Shows that the tool captures mistakes. Bill Fenner - wrong way to model MIB in XML - better to have element that is syntax or XML schema for writing a MIB response - I'm using XML in a very loose way, but this is better than nothing. Please make better proposal. Juergen - The opening argument in the beginning you wanted to move to data model. The main issue is not syntactic problem to get there. response - I asked for a BOF in order to discuss and have proposals of how to move forward chair - does not feel that it's a standards problem at this time but maybe should be discussed with tools people 5. Mini-BOF F: Japanese Data Model Standards: Tomoyuki Iijima http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-6.ppt - proposed goal for NGO Sharon - why select VLANs? response - well used technology in enterprise space chair - MIB modules are used for VLAN config in enterprises - good to see comparison between SNMP & netconf chair - In Chicago we will have one or two BOFs for data modeling. This contribution belongs to this space. Encourage to continue the work, update the I-D and bring proposals to the NGO work. 6. Mini-BOF G: OWL techniques for MIB to XML documents and schema translation - Bob Natale http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-7.ppt Andy Bierman - there are issues beyond mere translations - suggests that experts in a protocol would need to be involved in determining if conversion can even be done Scott Bradner - how fill in holes (beyond what MIB covers) bob - would need to have collaborative process for each MIB chair - good to invite WS-CIM folk to join discussion Sharon xx - may be mismatch between MIBs and service-orientated interface - also may be too high a data bandwidth generated for SOA/WS management stations Bob - yes an issue Sharon - how much interest in WS community Bob - much need among user & developer communities Dan Romascanu (from floor) - not sure that this fits the base role of the IETF - make net work better Bob - this will help the operators run the network better Eugene - spent years in WS area - high level seems to be good - but WS seems to rely on different fundamental information needs than what is in MIBs - also some groups in this area do not like each other (OAIS & DMTF for example). The other is political. Are the two standard bodies can really work together in the long term? xx - good idea & he is optimistic that this would be useful - but there are valid concerns about level of impact on the other communities chair - open list for discussion, consensus in the room 7. Late Submission - requirements to tunneling protocols OAM - KIKUCHI Yutaka Pekka - why is this tunnel specific? Only reordering is response - Our main objective is to measure tunnel quality. Chair - Maybe the next version of the draft you may need to better clarify what is tunnel quality, to emphasis the difference between interface and tunnel interface Scott Bradner - if you prepend seq # you change packet size you may have to fragment Response - I used GRE sequence number (32 bits). Good, if you prepend sequence number you may get into segmentation situation. chair -We'll continue to discuss this on the list, gauge interest and answer the questions. I forwarded this to IPPM and benchmarking WG. Tries to sense the interest in the room: 4-5 hands. Is this not relevant? None 8. Open microphone Margaret: The topics today were interesting. But interesting is not good enough. We have really bad history of trying to standardize management approaches that were not really needed by service providers. We much work only on what users really need. Dan: We split the OPS session to two days. Today's is more the 'new' issues. We need more feedback from operators. Work in the past lead to NETCONF etc. Dave K.: We haven't allowed BOFs for the last few IETF being strict to ensure that ideas that are not really required will not go forward. However we felt that we may miss some good ideas from going forward. Bob: To answer Margaret. I wanted to stress in my presentation that there are operators and users that need the data models. What do you want that shows this need. Margaret: I want them to be here and participate. If we don' t have multiple sources of input. David Partain: I'd like to address Margaret point. There has been a lot of discussions on data modeling. This is a real problem, since everyone wants to use NETCOM but there is not any data models. Our users want NETCONF. I think this is fair to characterizing it as real need. Margeret: Are you the customer of the data model David: Me and my customer. Ron B.: Maybe we should go to the operators and ask what are the most critical problems and start from that, i.e. solve this first. When he was a operator he would not have seen the issue as a lack of a data model - rather why does pager go off - should keep doing this kind of thing but should try to get closer to user’s actual perceived needs Andy: I don't believe it is possible to have a protocol independent data model. We don't have the expertise in web verbs etc. You should do the work. I agree with Scott that we don't have a way to fill in the holes. Dave H: Addressing Margaret point. I'm going to have a workgroup meeting to understand their needs. Are there any operators in the rooms? ~ 5 hands. on Monday he proposed an ops nm WG to get operators involved - looking for volunteers to help ops area better understand operator needs, also - operations & managements guidelines doc - also ooking for volunteers for that Bob: We might have minimum basic requirements for conversion of MIBs. But most MIBs should be map-able. Dave K.: Is the experiment with the mini-BOF useful? Around 30 hands Who thinks this is not useful? None Dan: Regarding Dave H suggestion for two working groups, I suggest that we unite it into one working group. Dave H: I think these are two different problems and should be done by two different contributor groups. Protocol designers and Operators. Dan: I agree, but work generates feedback and input generates work. My concern that split of resources and that there will not be enough interest if we split it to two. Dave K: From the operator part we don't want to be too lonely… The important thing is to have a good charter for the working group. Ron B: New WG chair. Applause to Dave K. I work for Juniper. I was an operator in the VBNS network. Looking forward to work with you all. Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de (hermes.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l34DuaPD009245 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:41 +0200 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A03955E1B for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27906-08; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DCC695CE; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 425CE20E0DC; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:56:31 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Message-ID: <20070404135631.GB19193@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] utrecht workshop followup status X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:56:46 -0000 Hi, I like to talk shortly about the Utrecht workshop followup. As Aiko mentioned at the IAB plenary and the 22nd NMRG meeting, Aiko and myself (as the organizers of the meeting) are working on a short workshop summary paper, focusing primarily on the major scientific research areas that were discussed in Utrecht. The intention is to submit this paper to the Network and Service Management series of the IEEE Communications Magazine (and this also sets limits on how much can be covered and the depth of the discussions). Following Aiko's presentations, the paper will cover the following seven topics: 1. architectures 2. distributed monitoring 3. data analysis and visualization 4. ontologies 5. enconomic aspects 6. uncertainty and probability 7. behaviour of managed systems The current status is that we have received contributions from seven people (Aiko Pras, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Mark Burgess, Olivier Festor, Gregorio Martinez, Rolf Stadler, Burkhard Stiller), each one describing one of the aspects mentioned above in some detail. Aiko is currently integrating the text fragments, trying to shape things into a coherent piece of text. Once things stabilize, we plan to put up a draft version here for comments and review. Once this has been accomplished, we hopefully find time to condense the meeting minutes into a more detailed workshop report with the intention to get it published as an RFC so that it can serve as a stable reference. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (smtpproxy2.mitre.org [192.80.55.71]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id l33FmeXg032212 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:48:46 +0200 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l33FmdKi008781 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:48:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F7C1BDA4 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:48:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l33FmaJx008667; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:48:39 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:48:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:48:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F01BA8D88@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: MIB2RMDL discussion list available Thread-Index: AcdwcCfEZyJt5bMOTaeTKpD3N4xYIQFlU3kA References: From: "Natale, Bob" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2007 15:48:33.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[88800B50:01C77607] X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de id l33FmeXg032212 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:10:27 +0200 Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, IETF MIBs Subject: [nmrg] MIB2RMDL discussion list available X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:48:55 -0000 Hi, For those who were not at the OpsArea meetings in Prague (or have forgotten :), we held a mini-BOF on the topic of standardizing a methodology to convert SNMP MIBs to SOA/WS resource model artifacts (tagged as "MIB to Resource Model Description Language" (MIB2RMDL), using "Language" very loosely in this context). The material presented in Prague is available at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-7.ppt. It's relatively short (13 slides or so) and employs the "repetition is the key to learning" approach (familiar to all of us from Jeff Case's many helpful tutorials on SNMP in past years). The O&M Area decided to proceed with further investigation of the MIB2RMDL idea, with the first step being to establish an e-mail list for discussion of the proposal. If you would like to participate or even just monitor the discussion, you can subscribe at https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml. My hope is that the discussion will lead to sufficient definition and further acceptance of the MIB2RMDL proposal so that we can charter a formal Working Group at IETF-69 in Chicago this July. I will produce and post an updated (-01) I-D in the next week or so, incorporating input/feedback from the Prague meeting and anything else that might develop on this list in the meantime. (Co-authors welcomed.) Cheers, BobN