From mib2rdml-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 14 03:59:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVTA-0000ba-Hd; Mon, 14 May 2007 03:59:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVT9-0000bG-Of; Mon, 14 May 2007 03:59:47 -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 1HnVT8-0007TI-F0; Mon, 14 May 2007 03:59:47 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2007 03:59:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,529,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="16632261:sNHT8296452" content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:59:03 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: REMINDER: Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group meetings and for preliminary BOF proposals to ADs Thread-Index: AceV/bsTZVZMo4yaSqGjesun0VoQRg== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , , , X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: Subject: [MIB2RDML] REMINDER: Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group meetings and for preliminary BOF proposals to ADs X-BeenThere: mib2rdml@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: converting MIB modules into resource models List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mib2rdml-bounces@ietf.org I apologize for the cross-posting. I would like to remind the WG chairs and folks interested in proposing BOFs for Chicago that the cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group meetings and for preliminary BOF proposals to ADs is 5/21.=20 For the BOF proposals the following are recommended reading:=20 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-successful-bof-02.txt Dan =20 _______________________________________________ MIB2RDML mailing list MIB2RDML@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml From mib2rdml-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 29 14:00:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht609-0006A3-Ml; Tue, 29 May 2007 14:00:57 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht609-00069y-4Y for mib2rdml@ietf.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 14:00:57 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org ([192.80.55.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht607-0003r7-6A for mib2rdml@ietf.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 14:00:57 -0400 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 l4THVfCI014511 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:31:41 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66B04F8D9 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:31:40 -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 l4THVepo014474 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 13:31:40 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 May 2007 14:00:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:00:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F01DFA7A6@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Getting started: Existing MIB to XML and related resource model efforts Thread-Index: AceiG0jeNchBcHo/RQ2zJW30sjCxzQ== From: "Natale, Bob" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2007 18:00:49.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A6E2E60:01C7A21B] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3d48d865303330c98a6e90d450cf2ff2 Subject: [MIB2RDML] Getting started: Existing MIB to XML and related resource model efforts X-BeenThere: mib2rdml@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: converting MIB modules into resource models List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1524470775==" Errors-To: mib2rdml-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1524470775== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A21B.4A2E7F05" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A21B.4A2E7F05 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 It appears that a sufficiently broad community of interest has now subscribed to the IETF MIB2RMDL list that we can begin a discussion of concepts, artifacts, methods, and goals...with the objective of determining whether an effort to specify a standardized methodology for converting SNMP MIBs to "resource models" which are more directly accessible to an integrated SOA/Web Services management environment is both feasible and of sufficient value to the Internet community to warrant formation of an IETF WG in the Operations & Management Area. =20 I have spent some time since the MIB2RMDL "mini-BOF" in Prague this past March ensuring that several of the non-IETF groups likely to be critical to MIB2RMDL success are aware of and interested in the effort. As a result, the set of subscribers to this list represents a variety of specializations within the O&M domain -- thus, each of us might have to offer a bit more background explanation (or pointers to it) when making observations from our particular realm of expertise. =20 In my survey of the existing literature the following documents and resources seem to summarize the state of SNMP MIB to XML work to date. The first three result from work led by Frank Strauss and Torsten Klie; the last two from work led by James Won-Ki Hong: * "Integrating SNMP Agents with XML-based Management Systems" at http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/papers/commag-2004.pdf. * "Generating Skeleton Code for NETCONF Modules from SMI MIB Module Definitions" at http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/bib/vs/Klie05.html. * MIB to XML Mapping Tool (MIBDUMP) at http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/xml.html. * "Development of SNMP-XML translator and gateway for XML-based integrated network management" at http://dpnm.postech.ac.kr/papers/IJNM/03/xml-translator-ijnm03.pdf . * "Interaction Translation Methods for XML/SNMP Gateway" at http://dpnm.postech.ac.kr/papers/DSOM/02/xml-snmp-gateway/xml-snmp-gate way.pdf. Those resources illustrate that a large chunk of basic MIB to XML conversion can be specified and automated fairly easily, but some specific difficulties remain and, it appears, you also have to consider how certain SNMP aspects will be implemented in the (logical) "gateway" component. None of the above work appears to have provided for all aspects of SMIv2 and SNMPv2c/v3. MIB2RMDL will have to provide such coverage. =20 Pending inputs from others on this list, I will start threads on the major issues left unresolved by that existing body of work in the coming days. (The authors of the papers cited above were kind enough to give me some insights into those issues.) =20 Beyond that existing SNMP MIB to XML oriented work, there are are least four non-IETF efforts underway to standardize (in the practical sense) "resource models" for managed entities in the SOA/Web Services environment: =20 1. Eclipse COSMOS Project, http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/: "The COSMOS (COmmunity-driven Systems Management in Open Source) project aims to provide an extensible, standards-based framework upon which software developers can create specialized, differentiated and inter-operable offerings of tools for system management." =20 I strongly recommend starting with the "COSMOS Project Creation Review" slides at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/cosmos/COSMOS%20Project%20Creation%20R eview-v1.0a.pdf, followed with a more recent set of "COSMOS Demo" slides from EclipseCON 2007 at=20 http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.cosmos/examples/ec lipseCon07/org.eclipse.cosmos.examples.eclipsecon07.doc/cosmos-demo-ec0 7.ppt?revision=3D1.2&root=3DTechnology_Project . =20 Wrt MIB2RMDL, COSMOS is focused on the Service Modeling Language (SML), which has recently been submitted as a W3C Draft: "SML is used to model complex IT services and systems, including their structure, constraints, policies, and best practices. SML is based on a profile on XML Schema and Schematron." As such, SML might provide the capabilities needed to address most or all of the current MIB to XML issues referred to above. =20 2. Apache Muse Project, http://ws.apache.org/muse/ . Apache Muse is "a framework upon which users can build web service interfaces for manageable resources", without having to implement all of the "plumbing" described by the the WS-ResourceFramework (WSRF ), WS-BaseNotification (WSN ), and WS-DistributedManagement (WSDM ) specifications standards." =20 Managed resources in Muse are defined in XML/RDF and, therefore, are somewhat more immediately implementable than the COSMOS SML targets. The Muse tutorial is available at http://ws.apache.org/muse/docs/2.2.0/tutorial/index.html . =20 Wrt MIB2RMDL, targeting Muse resources as a first plateau toward eventual COSMOS SML capabilities might be a good idea. The COSMOS and Muse teams have initiated collaboration between those two efforts. =20 3. The Redland Resource Description Framework (RDF) Libraries, http://librdf.org/ . "Redland is a set of free software libraries that provide support for the Resource Description Framework (RDF)." It is a set of "modular, object based libraries and APIs for manipulating the RDF graph , triples , URIs and Literals ." =20 I don't know much about Redland, but it looks like it could be useful to people implementing eventual MIB2RMDL specifications. =20 4. Last but definitely not least, the Open Grid Forum, www.ogf.org. OGF members are actually building, deploying, using, and refining open grid systems using many SOA/WS-oriented standards, technologies, and practices. OGF members could provide a very useful living laboratory for MIB2RMDL capabilities, assuming we produce a good specification via this effort. For those not familiar with the OGF, I would recommend three OFG WGs that appear to have the most relevance to MIB2RMDL (or vice versa!): * Open Grid Services Architecture WG (OGSA-WG), http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Dogsa-wg. * Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked Resources Management (SCRM-WG), http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Dscrm-wg and https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/scrm-wg . * OGSA Resource Usage Service WG (RUS-WG), http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Drus-wg and https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/rus-wg . In conclusion, the purpose in identifying the above four non-IETF groups and recommending close collaboration among individuals from all five groups is that they provide the SOA/WS management expertise, implementation vehicles, and real-world applications for rapid up-take of MIB2RMDL capabilities that should help to propel this work to completion and industry acceptance. =20 Cheers, BobN ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A21B.4A2E7F05 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
It=20 appears that a sufficiently broad community of interest has now = subscribed to=20 the IETF MIB2RMDL list that we can begin a discussion of concepts, = artifacts,=20 methods, and goals...with the objective of determining whether an effort = to=20 specify a standardized methodology for converting SNMP MIBs to "resource = models"=20 which are more directly accessible to an integrated SOA/Web Services = management=20 environment is both feasible and of sufficient value to the Internet = community=20 to warrant formation of an IETF WG in the Operations & Management=20 Area.
 
I=20 have spent some time since the MIB2RMDL "mini-BOF" in Prague this past = March=20 ensuring that several of the non-IETF groups likely to be critical to = MIB2RMDL=20 success are aware of and interested in the effort.  As a result, = the set of=20 subscribers to this list represents a variety of specializations within = the=20 O&M domain -- thus, each of us might have to offer a bit more=20 background explanation (or pointers to it) when making observations from = our=20 particular realm of expertise.
 
In my survey of the existing literature the = following=20 documents and resources seem to summarize the state of SNMP MIB to XML = work to=20 date.  The first three result from work led by Frank Strauss=20 and Torsten Klie; the last two from work led by James Won-Ki=20 Hong:
  • "Integrating SNMP=20 Agents with XML-based Management Systems" at http://www.ibr= .cs.tu-bs.de/papers/commag-2004.pdf.
  • "Generating Skeleton = Code for=20 NETCONF Modules from SMI MIB Module Definitions" at http://www.ibr.cs.= tu-bs.de/bib/vs/Klie05.html.
  • MIB to XML Mapping = Tool (MIBDUMP)=20 at http://www.i= br.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/xml.html.
  • "Development = of SNMP-XML=20 translator and gateway for XML-based integrated network management" at = http://dpnm.postech.ac.kr/papers/IJNM/03/xml-translator-ijnm03.p= df.
  • "Interaction = Translation Methods=20 for XML/SNMP Gateway" at http://dpnm.postech.ac.kr/papers/DSOM/02/xml-snmp-gateway/= xml-snmp-gateway.pdf.
Those resources illustrate that a large chunk = of basic=20 MIB to XML conversion can be specified and automated fairly easily, but = some=20 specific difficulties remain and, it appears, you also have to consider = how=20 certain SNMP aspects will be implemented in the (logical) "gateway"=20 component.  None of the above work appears to have provided for = all=20 aspects of SMIv2 and SNMPv2c/v3.  MIB2RMDL will have to provide = such=20 coverage.
 
Pending inputs from others on this list, I = will start=20 threads on the major issues left unresolved by that existing body of = work in the=20 coming days.  (The authors of the papers cited above were kind = enough to=20 give me some insights into those issues.)
 
Beyond that existing SNMP MIB to XML oriented = work,=20 there are are least four non-IETF efforts underway to standardize (in = the=20 practical sense) "resource models" for managed entities in the SOA/Web = Services=20 environment:
 
1. Eclipse COSMOS=20 Project, http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/: "The COSMOS (COmmunity-driven Systems = Management in=20 Open Source) project aims to provide an extensible, standards-based = framework=20 upon which software developers can create specialized, differentiated = and=20 inter-operable offerings of tools for system=20 management."
 
I strongly recommend starting with the = "COSMOS Project=20 Creation Review" slides at http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/cosmos/COSMOS%20P= roject%20Creation%20Review-v1.0a.pdf, followed with a more recent set of "COSMOS = Demo"=20 slides from EclipseCON 2007 at
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.cosmos/exam= ples/eclipseCon07/org.eclipse.cosmos.examples.eclipsecon07.doc/cosmos-dem= o-ec07.ppt?revision=3D1.2&root=3DTechnology_Project.
 
Wrt MIB2RMDL, COSMOS is focused on the = Service Modeling=20 Language (SML), which has recently been submitted as a W3C Draft: "SML = is used=20 to model complex IT services and systems, including their structure,=20 constraints, policies, and best practices. SML is based on a profile on = XML=20 Schema and Schematron."  As such, SML might provide the = capabilities needed=20 to address most or all of the current MIB to XML issues referred to=20 above.
 
2. Apache Muse = Project, http://ws.apache.org/muse/.  Apache Muse is "a framework upon which = users can=20 build web service interfaces for manageable resources", without having = to=20 implement all of the "plumbing" described by the the = WS-ResourceFramework (WSRF),=20 WS-BaseNotification (WSN), and=20 WS-DistributedManagement (WSDM) = specifications=20 standards."
 
Managed resources in Muse are defined in = XML/RDF and,=20 therefore, are somewhat more immediately implementable than the COSMOS = SML=20 targets.  The Muse tutorial is available at = http://ws.apache.org/muse/docs/2.2.0/tutorial/index.html<= /A>.
 
Wrt MIB2RMDL, targeting Muse resources as a = first=20 plateau toward eventual COSMOS SML capabilities might be a good = idea.  The=20 COSMOS and Muse teams have initiated collaboration between those two=20 efforts.
 
3. The Redland = Resource=20 Description Framework=20 (RDF) Libraries,=20 http://librdf.org/.  = "Redland=20 is a set of free software libraries that provide support for the = Resource=20 Description Framework (RDF)."  It = is a set=20 of "modular, object=20 based libraries and APIs for = manipulating=20 the RDF graph, = triples, URIs and Literals."
 
I don't know much about = Redland, but it=20 looks like it could be useful to people implementing eventual MIB2RMDL=20 specifications.
 
4. Last but definitely not least, the = Open Grid Forum, = www.ogf.org. =20 OGF members are actually building, deploying, using, and refining open = grid=20 systems using many SOA/WS-oriented standards, technologies, and = practices. =20 OGF members could provide a very useful living laboratory for MIB2RMDL=20 capabilities, assuming we produce a good specification via this = effort. =20 For those not familiar with the OGF, I would recommend three OFG WGs = that appear=20 to have the most relevance to MIB2RMDL (or vice=20 versa!):
  • Open Grid Services Architecture WG (OGSA-WG), http:/= /www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Dogsa-wg.
  • Standards = development=20 organizations Collaboration on networked Resources Management = (SCRM-WG), http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Dscrm-wg= and https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/scrm-wg.
  • OGSA Resource = Usage Service=20 WG (RUS-WG),  http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/view.php?group=3Drus-wg<= /A> and https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/projects/rus-wg.
In=20 conclusion, the purpose in identifying the above four non-IETF groups = and=20 recommending close collaboration among individuals from all five groups = is that=20 they provide the SOA/WS management expertise, implementation vehicles, = and=20 real-world applications for rapid up-take of MIB2RMDL capabilities that = should=20 help to propel this work to completion and industry=20 acceptance.
 
Cheers,
BobN
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A21B.4A2E7F05-- --===============1524470775== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MIB2RDML mailing list MIB2RDML@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml --===============1524470775==--