Received: from QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.64]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0SEWYVl025051 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:32:40 +0100 Received: from OMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.11]) by QMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id icQZ1Y0080EZKEL0507x00; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:32:31 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ieYT1Y0034HwxpC3M00000; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:32:31 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=yDhjHCI1xS0A:10 a=j3Z76cjpAAAA:8 a=iKDvA3FvuHjfsSgNDMsA:9 a=HOIWreTL2ssWbYZ6XloA:7 a=4gCOtdrKtt8DgBEU0xB6My8mluIA:4 a=FvgKqOQ44qUA:10 a=JrSEOxZJtCQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David B Harrington" To: References: <11f301c74f9d$215d2240$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <004301c85f98$ca4d9950$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com> <20080128140710.GB21008@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:32:27 -0500 Message-ID: <019d01c861ba$9b585d50$6502a8c0@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 V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-index: Achht3nGDB1afzV5SgGr1/W7+2rOZAAAuLIw In-Reply-To: <20080128140710.GB21008@elstar.local> X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 3.602 (***) BAYES_50, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" 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: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:32:43 -0000 Hi, I know that my original comments did not make it to the list, and Bert forwarded them to NMRG. I don't know if Bert's forward made it to the list either. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:07 AM > To: David B Harrington > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: > draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:25:20PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote: > > > I have reviewed the changes in -02- and compared them to my > suggested > > changes to -01-, as per my email of 2/13/07 (below). > > > > I find that the suggested changes were not addressed, from the > > simplest search and replace for English wording, to > discussion of the > > impact of different application designs. > > > > Was that intentional or an oversight? > > I obviously missed your comments when I updated the document in > December. This clearly is an oversight and not intentional. > > For some unknown reason, your comments were not in my private NMRG > email archive and it seems your message did not make it into the NMRG > email archive maintained on the mailing list server either. > > I will go over your comments later this week and then I guess we will > have an updated ID to take care of. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0SE9xYw020574 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:10:04 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F81F8A36E; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:09:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14382-03-52; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:09:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3D58A399; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:07:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8094648DAAF; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:07:10 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:07:10 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: David B Harrington Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Message-ID: <20080128140710.GB21008@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: David B Harrington , "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de References: <11f301c74f9d$215d2240$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <004301c85f98$ca4d9950$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004301c85f98$ca4d9950$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:10:16 -0000 On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 04:25:20PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote: > I have reviewed the changes in -02- and compared them to my suggested > changes to -01-, as per my email of 2/13/07 (below). > > I find that the suggested changes were not addressed, from the > simplest search and replace for English wording, to discussion of the > impact of different application designs. > > Was that intentional or an oversight? I obviously missed your comments when I updated the document in December. This clearly is an oversight and not intentional. For some unknown reason, your comments were not in my private NMRG email archive and it seems your message did not make it into the NMRG email archive maintained on the mailing list server either. I will go over your comments later this week and then I guess we will have an updated ID to take care of. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 Received: from QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.40]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0PNSKRQ031145 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:28:25 +0100 Received: from OMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hTXk1Y00T1GhbT8050hf00; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:28:14 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hbUB1Y0044HwxpC3T00000; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:28:14 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=jGScanialaIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=j3Z76cjpAAAA:8 a=Jiz0tsSxAAAA:8 a=l_3YkAnOz5X9TzUpBLkA:9 a=D9lWAF1TibAJLeWV3o8A:7 a=ZLQdx-7buLxFUu8xeNmanQ1RhooA:4 a=FvgKqOQ44qUA:10 a=JrSEOxZJtCQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David B Harrington" To: , References: <20080123175957.GA13637@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [nmrg] meeting at the upcoming ietf 71 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: <005f01c85fa9$f318f530$6502a8c0@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 V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-index: Achd6dkHd8FQOEeGQQyvdlP60ghALwBwAvwg In-Reply-To: <20080123175957.GA13637@elstar.local> X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 2.505 (**) BAYES_40, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 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, 25 Jan 2008 23:28:29 -0000 Hi, I woul dlikely attend such a meeting. I will already be at the IETF meeting. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > [mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen > Schoenwaelder > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:00 PM > To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: [nmrg] meeting at the upcoming ietf 71 > > Hi, > > I am wondering what the interest is here to schedule a meeting at the > upcoming IETF, say on Friday morning. > > A possible topics is a detailed review and discussion of the SNMP > analysis definitions document - assuming I can get Gijs who is a main > contributor to travel to Philadelphia. It would be very nice to get > technical feedback on the document (please be reminded that I posted a > poll whether this should become an NMRG work item on January 15th). > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-tr > ace-definitions-00.txt > > Another possible agenda item could be the presentation of a > classification system for research work in the network and service > management area that some people have put together by doing an > analysis of information recorded in conference paper reviewing > systems. > > There might be other issues to discuss - feel free to propose topics > that should be on a possible agenda. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > -- > !! 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://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. > Received: from QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0PLPTQR018979 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:25:35 +0100 Received: from OMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hPnk1Y0061GhbT8050xr00; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:25:24 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id hZRL1Y00Q4HwxpC3T00000; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:25:24 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Jiz0tsSxAAAA:8 a=HFeXvOOSk7dENzHOW5QA:9 a=vilvqscShJfu6uzf8jYA:7 a=TW6gtYzXfwBErAHFCbAod_ShtYIA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=PkPobLqB3P0A:10 From: "David B Harrington" To: "'David B Harrington'" , "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" , References: <11f301c74f9d$215d2240$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:25:20 -0500 Message-ID: <004301c85f98$ca4d9950$6502a8c0@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 V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-index: AcdEdscSxIVBee/8SXSLY9V37ItJ6AK3hILwAAqlcgBEBkVJIA== In-Reply-To: <11f301c74f9d$215d2240$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 3.602 (***) BAYES_50, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt 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, 25 Jan 2008 21:25:38 -0000 Hi, I have reviewed the changes in -02- and compared them to my suggested changes to -01-, as per my email of 2/13/07 (below). I find that the suggested changes were not addressed, from the simplest search and replace for English wording, to discussion of the impact of different application designs. Was that intentional or an oversight? dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: David B Harrington [mailto:dbharrington@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:31 PM > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: RE: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: > draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txt forInformational RFC > > Hi, > > I have reviewed this document. In my opinion, this document is > well-written, and documents a useful research approach. I recommend it > be published as an RFC. > > Below are some comments that might or might not improve the document. > Many of the comments deal with application-specific considerations > that could impact analysis results, and I feel the potential impact is > not as well documented as it should be. > > s/patterns are in real world/patterns occur in real world/ > s/binding interface/interface/ > s/can be store/can be stored/ > s/an SNMP messages/an SNMP message/ > s/are able convert/are able to convert/ > s/unneeded/unnecessary/ > > "The CSV format only captures the most essential parts ..." Shouldn't > you provide a qualifier for "the most essential"? I would think "the > most essential" depends on what you are trying to do with the raw > data, and that for some purposes, the data not kept might actually be > the most essential. > > Storing Traffic Traces stresses keeping the original traces. While > this is certainly important from a researcher's point of view, it also > incresaes the potential for security breach that could expose > sensitive information. I think this emphasis would make it harder for > me to convince operators to run traces and make them available. I > think there is a tradeoff between researcher needs and operators' > security needs, and for an operator, security trumps research. I think > this section should be written to recognize and contrast both points > of view, and to stress that operators should make the decision about > long-term storage of their non-anonymized traces. > > "Due to the availability" - This paragraph "rubs me the wrong way" by > suggesting that everybody use the same language. I think it would be > more effective if presented as "Tool implementers can choose any > language they want. The following tools have been used to do analysis > already, and are freely available for others to build on to speed > development time and consistency with other analysis work." Let people > decide it is in their best interest to build on the existing framework > rather than to start from scratch. But don't suggest that everybody > use the same language. But I do think it is important to inform the > reader of available tools that can be used to build their own solution > so they can try to replicate results of others, and make repliation of > their results easy for others. > > I found section 3.1 a little difficult to read. I think it might > benefit from being made a list: > 1) protocol versions used, > 2) operations used, > 3) standardized, proprietary, or experimental data > 4) message size distributions, and > 5) periodicity. > > For the third type of basic statistics, why not use mgmt(2), > experimental(30, private(4), and snmpv2(6) rather than standardized, > proprietary, and experimental? These are well-defined and standard > subtrees for these purposes. You might actually just say "categorize > by subtree" and then give examples. > > Differentiation at the layer you mention is useful, but within a > proprietary subtree, the tree might be broken down by product model, > and knowing which models generate which varbinds might be useful info. > Some polling applications adapt their requests based on what is known > to be available; once they determine that a given MIB module is not > supported on a device, then they might not poll for that subtree > (unless they detect a reboot or other event where the subtree might > become available). > > When doing any analysis based on a pcap capture in front of an > application, it should certainly be noted in the metadata which > application's traffic was being captured. This should probably be > mentioned in paragraph one of section 2.1. > > Different applications are designed to do different things. A generic > MIB browser might not be particular about what it polls; a bridging > fault detection application might poll the bridge mib and use traps > more extensively than other applications. One type of analysis that > could be done is to identify which MIB modules are polled regularly by > specific applications. > > Some applications rely on administrative configuration of polling; for > example, a popular application displays the date and time from the > device; but it asks the operator which object (and its format) to poll > to get the raw data used to generate that information. The bias of a > particular operator or a particular device vendor might be eliminated > in comparing large number of traces, but could be misleading is small > samples. > > Some applications only poll what an operator asks it to, and at the > frequency requested. This bias should be recognized. > > 3.2 Periodicity > > Again, the application should be taken into consideration. Spectrum, > and I expect other application suites, use a shared polling engine to > support multiple applications, and has indicators in its local > database of the likely variability of an object, and how important > that variability is to each using application. An application can tell > the poller "I need the absolute latest value" which causes the > database to always poll the object, or "Any value within the last 30 > minutes is fine", and the database will return a value form the > database that was recorded within the last 30 minutes, if available, > otherwise it polls to update the object, or "Any value since reboot" > which might be used for things like sysContact. > > So the periodic polling behavior is highly dependent on the > application and the polling engine it uses, and this needs to be > considered when analyzing traces. > > 3.3 Latency Distributions > > Some device implementations update their SNMP counters from the > underlying instrumentation following adaptive algorthms, not > necessarily periodically, and not necessarily on-demand. For example, > if an implementation chose to update the counters from the > instrumentation only when asked, but then to update the counter for > subsequent requests only if the data in the counter is more than X > seconds old, the measured latency might vary as a result (assuming > sending the repeat value takes less time than updating from the actual > instrumentation). The granularity of counter update may or may not be > significant to the latency measurement. > > 3.4 Concurrency > > It might also be interesting to see how many redundant requests coming > from different applications are processed almost simultaneously by a > device. Understanding this might prompt more usage of shared polling > engines to reduce the redundancy. > > Of course, for this you might need to perform the capture in front of > specific devices or device groups to capture traffic from multiple > applications. Section 2.1 discusses the location of probes; it > probably should mention the impact of location on analysis affected > by manager:device relationships of 1:m, m:1, and m:m. > > 3.5 retrieval approaches > > This is application-specific. > > "It will be useful to know which of these approaches are used on > production networks, by which applications." > > If an operator can detect that a particular application is being > inefficient, he can ask the vendor to modify the application retrieval > approach to improve efficiency, or he can buy more efficient > applications. > > 3.6 Trap-directed polling > > Whether polling is adapted based on having received a notification is > application-specific. > > Any analysis should take into consideration the application-specific > behavior before concluding "to what extent SNMP managers use automated > procedures ..." > > With a large enough sample, this might become unimportant, but thus > far, it has been hard to get samples, so this type of bias should be > mentioned for small samples. > > 3.8 Obsolete objects > > By parseing sysObjectID and sysDecr and the Host Resources MIB, you > might be able to determine how old the revisions of hardware and > software of the mansged devices are. This should probably be taken > into consideration when analyzing the use of obsolete and deprecated > objects. > > 3.10 Discontinuity > > "It will be interesting to study to what extent these objects are > actually used by management applications ..." isn't clear how you > would determine which continuity indicators are used by management > applications. The traces could be analyzed to correlate which > discontinuity indicators are included in requests for which counters > to infer what is used by management applications. > > 4.1 Should the irtf establish its own namespace registry? > > 4.13 why should activation of trap conversion be the user's choice? I > can see reasons for this, but you don't mention any, and it could be > important to the analysis. Is it also important to any subsequent user > of the CSV to know whether the traps were converted or not? > > 5.0 (filter-in principle) is mentioned, but there is no defintion of > what this means in the document, and no reference. It should either be > removed or a citation/reference added. > > Good job. > > David Harrington > dharrington@huawei.com > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > [mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert > (Bert) > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:56 AM > > To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > Subject: [nmrg] RE: NMRG Last Call: > > draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txt forInformational RFC > > > > Dear NMRG members, > > > > We have now received 6 reviews for this document. > > That is not a badd score. But of course we (as really active > > participants) want to show the IRTF community that we are > > much more active than any of these other reasearch groups. > > > > There are 3 more days before the Last Call ends. > > So PLEASE DO review and let us know your findings. > > We also want to see statements aka: > > > > I did read it and it looks good to me. > > > > I plan to summarize next Monday (so if you can only review during > > the coming weekend, you might still be able to squeeze it in). > > > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > > Sent: dinsdag 30 januari 2007 14:59 > > > To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de > > > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > > Subject: NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txt > > > for Informational RFC > > > > > > Juergen and NMRG members. > > > > > > Pls review and post your opinion BEFORE Feb 17th, 2007. > > > > > > Juergen wrote: > > > > > [...] Since I am personally involved as the > > > author/editor, the first > > > > > thing we need is a shepherd who is willing to run the > > > process, which > > > > > starts with soliciting RG > > > > reviews by > > > > > doing a RG last call. Any volunteers? > > > > > > > > Our shepherd for is > > > Bert Wijnen > > > > and he will now take over the procedure. Thanks to Bert for > > > helping us > > > > with this and also many thanks to the others who > > > volunteered to help > > > > move this document along. > > > > > > > > /js > > > I am starting my work as shepherd of this document, using the > > > irtf-rfcs-01a draft (as Juergen had included in his posting > > > last Friday) as the process to follow. This is based on: > > > > > > Juergen, > > > According to the irtf-rfcs-01a draft, we need to make sure we > > > have consensus that this is an RG supported document. > > > > > > from my quick checking of the nmrg mlist archives, it seems > > > that you proposed to make this an NMRG document in march > > > 2006, when you psted the abstract of your individual doument, > > > and asked: > > > > > > I believe that this work is highly relevant for the NMRG > > > and I hereby propose to turn this Internet-Draft which > > > is still an individual submission into an NMRG sponsored > > > Internet-Draft. Please let me know what you think about > > > this and especially if you have concerns about doing so. > > > > > > For all I can tell, I am the only one who responded positive > > > to this. I see no negative answers, but a lot of silence w.r.t. > > > this question. So it seems you have assumed that silence > > > means consent (and give the formulation of your question, we > > > can indeed interpret silence as consent, or at least as no > > objection. > > > > > > NMRG members: > > > > > > In order to consider this as an NMRG document, it is not > > > sufficient to "not object". We need at least a set of NMRG > > > members/participants to review the document and to comment. > > > If you are happy with the document and support its > > > publication as an NMRG supported Informational RFC, then I > > > would like to hear that, prefereably by posting such a > > > statement to the NMRG list. Something aka > > > > > > I have read the document, it is in good shape and I support > > > its publication as Informational RFC. > > > > > > If you have comments/sugegstions/concerns, pls let us know > > > and post them to this NMRG mailing list. > > > > > > Pls send your review comments/results BEFORE 17 Feb 2007. > > > Sooner is of course better. This allows for the authors to do > > > a new revision (if needed) before the ID cutoff. > > > > > > I propose that we consider my own review comments (posted > yesterday, > > > > http://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/pipermail/nmrg/2007-January/001187.html) > > > as initial RG LC comments. > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > -- > > !! 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://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. > > > > > Received: from rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0NIqgZn026955 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:52:47 +0100 Received: from leeuwarden.cs.utwente.nl (leeuwarden.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.54]) by rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m0NIqgYu009662; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:52:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from Macintosh.local (christoph.dagstuhl.de [192.76.146.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leeuwarden.cs.utwente.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1401537C7FC; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:52:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47978CF8.2090504@utwente.nl> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:52:40 +0100 From: Aiko Pras User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Subject: Re: [nmrg] meeting at the upcoming ietf 71 References: <20080123175957.GA13637@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20080123175957.GA13637@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0 () X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 130.89.10.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0rc3 (rotterdam.ewi.utwente.nl [130.89.10.5]); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:52:42 +0100 (MET) X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -1.951 () BAYES_20 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:52:49 -0000 Hi all I can not make it to Philadelphia. Detailed discussions on the SNMP analysis definitions document is something I would appreciate if it could be done. Bye Aiko Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering what the interest is here to schedule a meeting at the > upcoming IETF, say on Friday morning. > > A possible topics is a detailed review and discussion of the SNMP > analysis definitions document - assuming I can get Gijs who is a main > contributor to travel to Philadelphia. It would be very nice to get > technical feedback on the document (please be reminded that I posted a > poll whether this should become an NMRG work item on January 15th). > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt > > Another possible agenda item could be the presentation of a > classification system for research work in the network and service > management area that some people have put together by doing an > analysis of information recorded in conference paper reviewing > systems. > > There might be other issues to discuss - feel free to propose topics > that should be on a possible agenda. > > /js > Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0NI05oh019904 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:00:10 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74A58A2C3 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:00:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17284-04; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:59:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263EC8A259; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:59:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5F97D487E16; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:59:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:59:57 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Message-ID: <20080123175957.GA13637@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/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] meeting at the upcoming ietf 71 X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:00:12 -0000 Hi, I am wondering what the interest is here to schedule a meeting at the upcoming IETF, say on Friday morning. A possible topics is a detailed review and discussion of the SNMP analysis definitions document - assuming I can get Gijs who is a main contributor to travel to Philadelphia. It would be very nice to get technical feedback on the document (please be reminded that I posted a poll whether this should become an NMRG work item on January 15th). http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt Another possible agenda item could be the presentation of a classification system for research work in the network and service management area that some people have put together by doing an analysis of information recorded in conference paper reviewing systems. There might be other issues to discuss - feel free to propose topics that should be on a possible agenda. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0FHtA66021871 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:55:15 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,288,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="86128949" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2008 12:55:02 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,288,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="143000424" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2008 12:54:22 -0500 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" Subject: RE: [nmrg] I-D ACTION:draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:54:19 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080115173353.GA27178@elstar.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [nmrg] I-D ACTION:draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt Thread-Index: AchXnOpl0qLMTEuHStSjJk9XxkV6TAAAprlw References: <20080115173353.GA27178@elstar.local> 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 m0FHtA66021871 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, 15 Jan 2008 17:55:19 -0000 Hi Juergen, I support this work and I commit to review it. Dan (speaking as contributor) > -----Original Message----- > From: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > [mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen > Schoenwaelder > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 7:34 PM > To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: [nmrg] I-D > ACTION:draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt > > Hi, > > the following Internet Draft just got posted. This ID is the > document we started at the last NMRG meeting in Enschede in > November 2007. It introduces a bunch of definitions that have > already been implemented in SNMP trace analysis tools > developed at the University of Twente and Jacobs University. > > At the last NMRG meeting, our idea was to move this document > forward as an NMRG document. However, since the meeting was > only attend by a small number of people, I like to check with > the NMRG the level of support for taking on this document as > an NMRG work item. This in particular requires that we find > volunteers who (a) express their support for discussing this > work within the NMRG and who (b) commit reviewing cycles to > this document when it gets ready for RG last call. > > Please let me know your level of support and/or the reasons > why you think this work should not be done within the NMRG. > Please do so within the next two weeks so that I can > summarize by the end of this months. > > Thanks, > > /js > > ---8<--- > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : SNMP Trace Analysis Definitions > Author(s) : J. Schoenwaelder, et al. > Filename : > draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt > Pages : 26 > Date : 2008-1-15 > > The Network Management Research Group (NMRG) started an activity to > collect traces of the Simple Network Management Protocol > (SNMP) from > operational networks. To analyze these traces, it is necessary to > split potentially large traces into more manageable pieces > that make > it easier to deal with large data sets and simplify the analysis of > the data. > > This document provides some common definitions that have been found > useful for implementing tools to support trace analysis. This > document mainly serves as a reference for the definitions > underlying > these tools and it is not meant to explain all the motivation and > reasoning behind the definitions. Some of this background > information can be found in other research papers. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-tr ace-definitions-00.txt ---8<--- -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 -- !! 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://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0FHXx3H019620 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:34:04 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFBE8A385 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29557-04; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD1C8A360; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 628F246729B; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:33:53 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Message-ID: <20080115173353.GA27178@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/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -1.951 () BAYES_20 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] I-D ACTION:draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:34:07 -0000 Hi, the following Internet Draft just got posted. This ID is the document we started at the last NMRG meeting in Enschede in November 2007. It introduces a bunch of definitions that have already been implemented in SNMP trace analysis tools developed at the University of Twente and Jacobs University. At the last NMRG meeting, our idea was to move this document forward as an NMRG document. However, since the meeting was only attend by a small number of people, I like to check with the NMRG the level of support for taking on this document as an NMRG work item. This in particular requires that we find volunteers who (a) express their support for discussing this work within the NMRG and who (b) commit reviewing cycles to this document when it gets ready for RG last call. Please let me know your level of support and/or the reasons why you think this work should not be done within the NMRG. Please do so within the next two weeks so that I can summarize by the end of this months. Thanks, /js ---8<--- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : SNMP Trace Analysis Definitions Author(s) : J. Schoenwaelder, et al. Filename : draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2008-1-15 The Network Management Research Group (NMRG) started an activity to collect traces of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) from operational networks. To analyze these traces, it is necessary to split potentially large traces into more manageable pieces that make it easier to deal with large data sets and simplify the analysis of the data. This document provides some common definitions that have been found useful for implementing tools to support trace analysis. This document mainly serves as a reference for the definitions underlying these tools and it is not meant to explain all the motivation and reasoning behind the definitions. Some of this background information can be found in other research papers. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schoenw-nmrg-snmp-trace-definitions-00.txt ---8<--- -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de (smtp0.netlab.nec.de [195.37.70.40]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m0FFw5Xa006639 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:58:10 +0100 Received: from localhost (atlas1.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3C528000352; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:58:01 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office) Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2RI2qA+vN+Bw; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:58:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4385D2800052B; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:57:51 +0100 (CET) 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" Subject: RE: [nmrg] NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txtforInformational RFC Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:57:51 +0100 Message-ID: <113091BD57179D4491C19DA7E10CD69601A507B0@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <20071207104527.GA11352@elstar.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [nmrg] NMRG Last Call: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txtforInformational RFC Thread-Index: Acg4wXBzpcwNeaaSRpm2EyVWDFYg9Ad4+jqg References: <113091BD57179D4491C19DA7E10CD696AB366C@mx1.office> <20071207104527.GA11352@elstar.local> From: "Giorgio Nunzi" 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 m0FFw5Xa006639 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:55:39 +0100 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de 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, 15 Jan 2008 15:58:12 -0000 Hi Juergen, Thanks for the changes: they look fine to me. Regarding the XML sources, I think that your solution is fine too. Giorgio NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:45 AM > To: Giorgio Nunzi > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: Re: [nmrg] NMRG Last Call: > draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-01.txtforInformational RFC > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:43:07AM +0100, Giorgio Nunzi wrote: > > > - Motivations (contained in par.1): the document mentions only the > > importance for the research community. I would expect that > > providers can benefit from SNMP measurements too, because they can > > improve their management processes and scripts. In other words, > > providers can use management traffic statistics in the same way > > they are already using data traffic statistics. > > I have added another paragraph to the introduction to make this > clearer: > > While the SNMP trace collection and analysis effort was > initiated by the research community, it should be noted that > network operators can benefit from the SNMP measurements too. > Several new tools are being developed as part of this effort > that can be used to capture and analyze the traffic generated > by management stations. This resulting information can then be > used to improve the efficiency and scalability of management > systems. > > > - Permanent store of raw traces. The document strongly suggests to > > store raw traces (i.e. those without anonymization filtering), but > > I think that this might require an additional effort to providers > > (e.g. raw traces should be store securely and in a different place > > than the anonymized traces). I understand that raw traces can be > > used again if the scripts makes somehow wrong transformation > > (i.e. they contains some bugs). However I think that in this > > (unlucky) case we should simply trash the bad traces, fix the > > scripts and take new fresh traces. Frank had similar opinion on > > this. > > I added text to address this, see my response to Frank's review. > > > Finally, a small suggestion: can't we upload a complete W3C > XML schema > > somewhere (e.g. NMRG web page)? This would make the work > accessible to > > more people, if possible. > > I will see whether I can put things up somewhere. Right now, > the sources of the ID are contained in the subversion system > of the snmpdump package. I have checked the trang XSD > conversion into the subversion system so we have everything > in one place. > > https://trac.eecs.iu-bremen.de/projects/snmpdump/browser/trunk/doc > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m09MHH06004104 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:22 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600B08A38A; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09677-05; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78F48A212; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 73E6245FFA0; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 23:17:11 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Subject: Re: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Message-ID: <20080109221711.GB5390@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)" , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de References: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -1.096 () BAYES_40 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, "WIJNEN, Bert \(Bert\)" X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:17:24 -0000 On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:19:32PM +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Obviously that NOTE forgot to take into account that there are RFCs that > do not necessarily go through a full IETF Consensus process (including > IETF Last Call). > > Let me know what response you get from the IRSG and whether you want me > to do a similar query with the IESG. Thanks for offering help. I assume that Aaron Falk will contact the IESG; perhaps you can collaborate with him to get this discussed and resolved and finally an errata posted (which hopefully says "specification required" was the intention ;-). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 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 m09IKMUp005670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:20:28 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,263,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="97148718" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2008 13:20:16 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,263,1196658000"; d="scan'208";a="148264267" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2008 13:19:36 -0500 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" Subject: RE: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:19:32 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Thread-Index: AchR6TOuvO2inWVoR2GLx3L1/kw67QBAo6DQ References: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , "WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)" 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 m09IKMUp005670 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de 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: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:20:33 -0000 Juergen, Obviously that NOTE forgot to take into account that there are RFCs that do not necessarily go through a full IETF Consensus process (including IETF Last Call). Let me know what response you get from the IRSG and whether you want me to do a similar query with the IESG. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > [mailto:nmrg-bounces@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen > Schoenwaelder > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:25 PM > To: WIJNEN, Bert (Bert) > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: Re: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for > draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 06:51:15PM +0100, WIJNEN, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > > Pls check if your comments have been addressed properly. > > If not, pls let us know asap, preferably before 22 Dec 2007. > > If no negative comments/objections are received by that > date, then we > > will go forward and ask for the IRSG review and further > steps towards > > publication as RFC. > > I checked the idnits output and the tool complains that there > is no IANA considerations section. In fact, we have an IANA > consideration since we need a URI for the XML namespace. My > preference would be to follow RFC 3688 and request from IANA > that the URN > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:snmp-trace > > is being allocated. However, I note that RFC 3688 says the following: > > [...] NOTE: in order for a URN of this type to be > assigned, the item being registered MUST have been through the IETF > consensus process. Basically, this means that it must be > documented > in a RFC. > > This text is somewhat ambiguous whether IRTF RFCs can > actually allocate URNs. I will check with the IRSG how to > handle this and keep you informed. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > -- > !! 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://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg. > Received: from mx12.bbn.com (mx12.bbn.com [128.33.0.81]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m08EYGfN021989 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:34:22 +0100 Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15] helo=localhost) by mx12.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JCFWn-0003wL-58; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:34:05 -0500 Message-Id: <127A0799-61EC-4C6E-B9FD-79568B2B87B6@bbn.com> From: Aaron Falk To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de In-Reply-To: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:34:05 -0500 References: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:02:13 +0100 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, "WIJNEN, Bert \(Bert\)" 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, 08 Jan 2008 14:34:24 -0000 I'll look into this. (btw, falk@bbn.com is my preferred address.) --aaron On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 06:51:15PM +0100, WIJNEN, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >> Pls check if your comments have been addressed properly. >> If not, pls let us know asap, preferably before 22 Dec 2007. >> If no negative comments/objections are received by that date, >> then we will go forward and ask for the IRSG review and >> further steps towards publication as RFC. > > I checked the idnits output and the tool complains that there is no > IANA considerations section. In fact, we have an IANA consideration > since we need a URI for the XML namespace. My preference would be > to follow RFC 3688 and request from IANA that the URN > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:snmp-trace > > is being allocated. However, I note that RFC 3688 says the following: > > [...] NOTE: in order for a URN of this type to be > assigned, the item being registered MUST have been through the IETF > consensus process. Basically, this means that it must be documented > in a RFC. > > This text is somewhat ambiguous whether IRTF RFCs can actually > allocate URNs. I will check with the IRSG how to handle this and > keep you informed. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m08BOsHE028463 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:59 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6173686CB4; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29790-05; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E36B874D1; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6040A45E092; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:24:47 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)" Subject: Re: [nmrg] NMRF Last Call for draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-02.txt Message-ID: <20080108112447.GC1314@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "WIJNEN, Bert (Bert)" , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, Aaron Falk References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -1.951 () BAYES_20 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:25:01 -0000 On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 06:51:15PM +0100, WIJNEN, Bert (Bert) wrote: > Pls check if your comments have been addressed properly. > If not, pls let us know asap, preferably before 22 Dec 2007. > If no negative comments/objections are received by that date, > then we will go forward and ask for the IRSG review and > further steps towards publication as RFC. I checked the idnits output and the tool complains that there is no IANA considerations section. In fact, we have an IANA consideration since we need a URI for the XML namespace. My preference would be to follow RFC 3688 and request from IANA that the URN urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:snmp-trace is being allocated. However, I note that RFC 3688 says the following: [...] NOTE: in order for a URN of this type to be assigned, the item being registered MUST have been through the IETF consensus process. Basically, this means that it must be documented in a RFC. This text is somewhat ambiguous whether IRTF RFCs can actually allocate URNs. I will check with the IRSG how to handle this and keep you informed. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by bierator.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id m02DT17R019761 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:29:06 +0100 Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE5C40CF for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:29:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07498-03-4; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:28:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155C58A1CA; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:28:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AE6B54519F6; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:28:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 14:28:50 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de Message-ID: <20080102132850.GA3075@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/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: -2.599 () BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] updates of the nmrg web page X-BeenThere: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: Network Management Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:29:08 -0000 Hi, I hope you all had a good start into 2008. I started the year 2008 or the NMRG by updating the NMRG web pages and it would be nice to update the list of research papers that are related to the NMRG (i.e. they acknowledge NMRG meetings or NMRG results in some way). Please check out the list on http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/ and send me any missing items (preferrably in BiBTeX format). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 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 m01JMu9H013131 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:23:02 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,230,1196658000"; d="url'?txt'208?scan'208,208";a="95445224" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 01 Jan 2008 04:37:43 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,230,1196658000"; d="url'?txt'208?scan'208,208";a="145695778" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 01 Jan 2008 04:37:07 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7" Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt Thread-Index: AchL0QmeSPqVlb3tRICXssrfFr1H4AAiMAVA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , , X-IBRFilter-SpamReport: 0.001 () BAYES_50 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 134.169.34.9 Subject: [nmrg] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt 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, 01 Jan 2008 19:23:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7 Content-Type: text/plain; name="warning1.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="warning1.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.417 (Entity 5.417) WARNING: This e-mail has been altered by MIMEDefang. Following this paragraph are indications of the actual changes made. For more information about your site's MIMEDefang policy, contact MIMEDefang Administrator . For more information about MIMEDefang, see: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/enduser.php3 An attachment named draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.URL was removed from this document as it constituted a security hazard. If you require this document, please contact the sender and arrange an alternate means of receiving it. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline =20 I apologize for cross-posting.=20 Dan =20 -----Original Message----- From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org]=20 Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:15 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt=20 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Retriving MIB Information based on NGI=20=20 Author(s) : J. Zhang, et al. Filename : draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2007-12-31 =09 An important task of network management is to collect and analyze=20 MIB information of various object combinations based on the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) with proper frequency. The purpose of this document is to propose two algorithms to retrieve MIB information for a large (up to exponential) number of managed=20 objects using SNMP in Next Generation Internet (NGI).=20 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jinxiang-operations-and-manage ment-ngi-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to=20 i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of=20 the message.=20 You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce=20 to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the=20 username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After=20 logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then=20 "get draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=20 or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-jinxiang-operations-and-management-ngi-00.txt". =09 NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="ATT585536.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT585536.TXT Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT585536.TXT" Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBNZXNzYWdlL0V4dGVybmFsLWJvZHk7IGFjY2Vzcy10 eXBlPSJtYWlsLXNlcnZlciI7DQoJc2VydmVyPSJtYWlsc2VydkBpZXRmLm9y ZyINCg0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluDQpDb250ZW50LUlEOiA8 MjAwNy0xMi0zMTExMjAxMS5JLURAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQoNCkVOQ09ESU5HIG1p bWUNCkZJTEUgL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1qaW54aWFuZy1vcGVy YXRpb25zLWFuZC1tYW5hZ2VtZW50LW5naS0wMC50eHQNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7 Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT585537.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ATT585537.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT585537.txt" X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X18NCkktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCkktRC1Bbm5vdW5jZUBp ZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vaS1kLWFubm91bmNlDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84C59.DFC82AA7--