Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 11:09:14 +0100

On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:03:06 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> This is an old story. Most RFCs have "Network Working Group" in the
> top left corner. You may want to read RFC 2223 section 4 on page 7:

I guess I've read too much HTTP material lately :-)

> I think we should follow RFC 2223 and keep the tradition alive.

Agreed

Jean-Philippe

____________________________________________________________________
Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin, EPFL-DI-ICA, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Email: [email-masked]                   Fax: +41-21-693-66-10
Web: http://icawww.epfl.ch/~jpmf/

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:34:33 +0100
From: Luca Deri <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Finsiel S.p.A.
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

Juergen,

> Luca> I would add a sentence saying that manager/agent should try to
> Luca> close the connection after a whole PDU has been transmitted
> Luca> (i.e. not while a PDU is being sent).
> 
> I have thought quite a while about it. Suppose you are an agent and
> you want to send a large response and the TCP connection gets blocked
> half way down the road. If you care about your resources, you may want
> to close the connection after some time, even though you are in the
> middle of a PDU transmission. (BTW, this is what most HTTP servers do
> if things don't move forward in a given time window.) The receiver
> will recognize that the transmission was aborted and throw away what
> he got so far.
Right. That's why I've said "..that manager/agent *should* try to..".

>    Note, the originator of a request/response transaction chooses the
>    transport protocol for the whole transaction. The transport protocol
>    MUST NOT change during a transaction.
IMHO, This sentence is perfect.

More comments:
[1]
>3.1.  Serialization
>
>   Each instance of a message is serialized into a single BER encoded
>   message, using the algorithm specified in Section 8 of RFC 1906.  The
>   BER encoded message is then send over a TCP connection.
                                ^^^^^ Fix.

[2] Traps
In this case the agent (not the manager) has to decide what transport
has to be used for sending traps. I would say that a "TCP-enhanced"
agent can choose to use TCP depending on the trap size. Nevertheless, if
the trapd does not accept TCP connections (i.e. the connection
establishment fails) then UDP is used. This allows implementors to
maintain a certain degree of backward compatibility.

[3]
> It might be useful to add more text to this section about when to
> choose TCP and when not. Any proposals?
UDP MUST be supported whereas TCP is optional (i.e. a) applications may
support it b) application that support TCP may decide to switch back to
UDP when necessary [see later]). In general originators should be free
to use the transport they assume is the best for a certain situation.
Nevertheless, TCP costs more than UDP in terms of resource usage.
Therefore "TCP-enhanced" applications may choose to switch back (i.e.
refuse new TCP connections) to UDP whenever necessary (i.e. too many
open connections, resource shortage).

Does all this make sense?

Cheers, Luca.

-- 
Luca Deri		 Finsiel S.p.A.
Via Matteucci 34/B	 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Ph. +39/050/968.639      Fax. +39/050/968.626
Email: [email-masked] WWW: http://www.tlcpi.finsiel.it/~deri/
Software is about stuff, about getting hands dirty - Jim Coplien

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:34:14 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Luca Deri writes:

Luca> [1]
>> Both, an SNMP entity in the agent role and an SNMP entity in the
>> manager role, are allowed to close the connections at any point in
>> time. This ensures that SNMP entities can control their resource
Luca> I would add a sentence saying that manager/agent should try to
Luca> close the connection after a whole PDU has been transmitted
Luca> (i.e. not while a PDU is being sent).

I have thought quite a while about it. Suppose you are an agent and
you want to send a large response and the TCP connection gets blocked
half way down the road. If you care about your resources, you may want
to close the connection after some time, even though you are in the
middle of a PDU transmission. (BTW, this is what most HTTP servers do
if things don't move forward in a given time window.) The receiver
will recognize that the transmission was aborted and throw away what
he got so far.

Luca> [2] In addition I would say: - managers can choose the transport
Luca> protocol (UDP/TCP) - agents have to reply using the transport
Luca> protocol choosed by the manager.

I would formulate it a bit different:

   Note, the originator of a request/response transaction chooses the
   transport protocol for the whole transaction. The transport protocol
   MUST NOT change during a transaction.

This also covers informs which may originate from a traditional
agent. I have added this text to section 3 now. 

It might be useful to add more text to this section about when to
choose TCP and when not. Any proposals?
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:33:58 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Luca Deri writes:

Luca> [1]
>> Both, an SNMP entity in the agent role and an SNMP entity in the
>> manager role, are allowed to close the connections at any point in
>> time. This ensures that SNMP entities can control their resource
Luca> I would add a sentence saying that manager/agent should try to
Luca> close the connection after a whole PDU has been transmitted
Luca> (i.e. not while a PDU is being sent).

I have thought quite a while about it. Suppose you are an agent and
you want to send a large response and the TCP connection gets blocked
half way down the road. If you care about your resources, you may want
to close the connection after some time, even though you are in the
middle of a PDU transmission. (BTW, this is what most HTTP servers do
if things don't move forward in a given time window.) The receiver
will recognize that the transmission was aborted and throw away what
he got so far.

Luca> [2] In addition I would say: - managers can choose the transport
Luca> protocol (UDP/TCP) - agents have to reply using the transport
Luca> protocol choosed by the manager.

I would formulate it a bit different:

   Note, the originator of a request/response transaction chooses the
   transport protocol for the whole transaction. The transport protocol
   MUST NOT change during a transaction.

This also covers informs which may originate from a traditional
agent. I have added this text to section 3 now. 

It might be useful to add more text to this section about when to
choose TCP and when not. Any proposals?
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:34:04 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Luca Deri writes:

Luca> [1]
>> Both, an SNMP entity in the agent role and an SNMP entity in the
>> manager role, are allowed to close the connections at any point in
>> time. This ensures that SNMP entities can control their resource
Luca> I would add a sentence saying that manager/agent should try to
Luca> close the connection after a whole PDU has been transmitted
Luca> (i.e. not while a PDU is being sent).

I have thought quite a while about it. Suppose you are an agent and
you want to send a large response and the TCP connection gets blocked
half way down the road. If you care about your resources, you may want
to close the connection after some time, even though you are in the
middle of a PDU transmission. (BTW, this is what most HTTP servers do
if things don't move forward in a given time window.) The receiver
will recognize that the transmission was aborted and throw away what
he got so far.

Luca> [2] In addition I would say: - managers can choose the transport
Luca> protocol (UDP/TCP) - agents have to reply using the transport
Luca> protocol choosed by the manager.

I would formulate it a bit different:

   Note, the originator of a request/response transaction chooses the
   transport protocol for the whole transaction. The transport protocol
   MUST NOT change during a transaction.

This also covers informs which may originate from a traditional
agent. I have added this text to section 3 now. 

It might be useful to add more text to this section about when to
choose TCP and when not. Any proposals?
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:03:06 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-reply-to: <[email-masked]> ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> J P Martin-Flatin writes:

>> Network Working Group
J> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Network Management Research Group

This is an old story. Most RFCs have "Network Working Group" in the
top left corner. You may want to read RFC 2223 section 4 on page 7:

:    Network Working Group
:
:       The traditional heading for the group that founded the RFC
:       series.  This appears on the first line on the left hand side
:       of the heading.

I think we should follow RFC 2223 and keep the tradition alive.

							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:42:49 MET." <[email-masked]> 
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:47:18 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:42:49 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> Cynthia, please post the attached document as Internet Draft
> <draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt>. This document is the result 
> of the network management research group of the IRTF.
> 
> 							Juergen
> 
> 
> Network Working Group                           J. Schoenwaelder, Editor
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Network Management Research Group

Jean-Philippe

____________________________________________________________________
Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin, EPFL-DI-ICA, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Email: [email-masked]                   Fax: +41-21-693-66-10
Web: http://icawww.epfl.ch/~jpmf/

--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:00:21 +0100
From: Luca Deri <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Finsiel S.p.A.
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Juergen,
a few comments:

[1]
>    Both, an SNMP entity in the agent role and an SNMP entity in the
>    manager role, are allowed to close the connections at any point in
>    time. This ensures that SNMP entities can control their resource
I would add a sentence saying that manager/agent should try to close the
connection after a whole PDU has been transmitted (i.e. not while a PDU
is being sent).

[2]
In addition I would say: 
- managers can choose the transport protocol (UDP/TCP)
- agents have to reply using the transport protocol choosed by the
manager.

This is because:
- if the manager choosed TCP but the reply is very short the agent
should reply with UDP because in any case the TCP connection has to be
closed -> there's no bandwidth gain is UDP is choosed for the reply
- if the manager sends a UDP request that generates a very large reply,
the agent is not entitled to choose TCP because otherwise the manager
would have to support TCP too but the agent cannot speculate this (i.e.
no upward compatibility) 

Cheers, Luca.

-- 
Luca Deri		 Finsiel S.p.A.
Via Matteucci 34/B	 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Ph. +39/050/968.639      Fax. +39/050/968.626
Email: [email-masked] WWW: http://www.tlcpi.finsiel.it/~deri/
Software is about stuff, about getting hands dirty - Jim Coplien
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:49:08 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] SNMP over TCP Internet Draft
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

I have submitted the SNMP over TCP document as an ID. I fixed a few
typos and I turned the definitions into valid SMIv2 (I hope). 

My idea was to register the definitions in the experimental tree. I
asked IANA to reserve a node for the NMRG. However, they need to have
an ID first. Thats why the current version uses {experimental
xxxx}. Once we get the real assignement from IANA, we can re-submit
this ID and use the reserved node for other purposes as well.

							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:42:49 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Cynthia, please post the attached document as Internet Draft
<draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt>. This document is the result 
of the network management research group of the IRTF.

							Juergen

Network Working Group                           J. Schoenwaelder, Editor
Internet-Draft                                           TU Braunschweig
Expires September 1999                                     23 March 1999

                    SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping

                   <draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.  Internet-Drafts are
   working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to
   the Network Management Research Group, <[email-masked]>.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo defines a transport mapping for using the Simple Network
   Management Protocol (SNMP) over TCP. The transport mapping defined in
   this memo can be used with any version of SNMP.

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping         January 1999

   Table of Contents

   1 Introduction .................................................    3
   2 Definitions ..................................................    3
   3 SNMP over TCP ................................................    4
   3.1 Serialization ..............................................    4
   3.2 Well-known Values ..........................................    4
   3.3 Connection Management ......................................    5
   4 Acknowledgments ..............................................    5
   5 Editor's Address .............................................    5
   6 Full Copyright Statement .....................................    6

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping         January 1999

1.  Introduction

   This memo defines a transport mapping for using the Simple Network
   Management Protocol (SNMP) over TCP. The transport mapping defined in
   this memo can be used with any version of SNMP. This document extends
   the transport mappings defined in RFC 1906.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

2.  Definitions

   IRTF-NMRG-SNMP-TM DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

   IMPORTS
       MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-IDENTITY, experimental
           FROM SNMPv2-SMI
       TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
           FROM SNMPv2-TC;

   nmrgSnmpDomains MODULE-IDENTITY
       LAST-UPDATED "9903231800Z"
       ORGANIZATION "IRTF Network Management Research Group"
       CONTACT-INFO
           "Juergen Schoenwaelder
            TU Braunschweig
            Bueltenweg 74/75
            38106 Braunschweig
            Germany
            Tel: +49 531 391-3283
            E-mail: [email-masked]"
       DESCRIPTION
           "This MIB module defines the SNMP over TCP transport mapping."
       ::= { experimental nmrg(xxxx) 1 }

   -- SNMP over TCP over IPv4

   snmpTCPDomain   OBJECT-IDENTITY
       STATUS      current
       DESCRIPTION
           "The SNMP over TCP/IPv4 transport domain. The corresponding
            transport address is of type SnmpTCPAddress."
       ::= { nmrgSnmpDomains 6 }   -- matches first unused value
                                   -- below snmpDomains

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping         January 1999

   SnmpTCPAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d/2d"
       STATUS       current
       DESCRIPTION
               "Represents a TCP/IPv4 address:

                  octets   contents        encoding
                   1-4     IP-address      network-byte order
                   5-6     TCP-port        network-byte order
               "
       SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))
   END

3.  SNMP over TCP

   This is an optional transport mapping. However, implementors are
   encouraged to support SNMP over TCP whenever possible because this
   enables applications to use more efficient MIB data transfers.

3.1.  Serialization

   Each instance of a message is serialized into a single BER encoded
   message, using the algorithm specified in Section 8 of RFC 1906.  The
   BER encoded message is then send over a TCP connection.

   Note, it is possible to exchange multiple SNMP request/response pairs
   over a single TCP connection. The length field in the BER encoded
   SNMP message is used to separate multiple requests send over a single
   TCP connection.

3.2.  Well-known Values

   It is suggested that administrators configure their SNMP entities
   acting in an agent role to listen on TCP port 161 for incoming
   connections.  Further, it is suggested that notification sinks be
   configured to listen on TCP port 162.

   When an SNMP entity uses this transport mapping, it must be capable
   of accepting messages that are at least 484 octets in size.
   Implementation of larger values is encouraged whenever possible.

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping         January 1999

3.3.  Connection Management

   The use of TCP connections introduces costs. Connection establishment
   and shutdown causes additional traffic on the wire. Further,
   maintaining open connections binds resources in the network layer of
   the underlying operating system.

   TCP connections should therefore only be used when the size of the
   data transferred would otherwise cause large latencies due to small
   UDP packet sizes and an increased number of interactions.

   Both, an SNMP entity in the agent role and an SNMP entity in the
   manager role, are allowed to close the connections at any point in
   time. This ensures that SNMP entities can control their resource
   usage and shutdown TCP connections that are not used. Note, SNMP
   engines are not expected to process any outstanding requests if the
   underlying TCP connection has been closed. A no response error
   condition SHOULD be signalled for outstanding requests for command
   generator applications if the TCP connection is closed.

4.  Acknowledgments

   The definitions in this memo are inspired by definitions found in RFC
   1906. This document is the result of the Network Management Research
   Group (NMRG). Special thanks go to the following participants for
   their comments and contributions:

   Luca Deri, Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin, Aiko Pras, Ron Sprenkels,
   Bert Wijnen

5.  Editor's Address

     Juergen Schoenwaelder             Email: [email-masked]
     TU Braunschweig                     Tel: +49 531 391-3283
     Bueltenweg 74/75
     38106 Braunschweig
     Germany

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping         January 1999

6.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the  purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

J. Schoenwaelder                                                [Page 6]
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:38:38 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] some procedural aspects
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Welcome on the NMRG mailing list. Since we are now officially approved
as a research group of the Internet Research Task Force (sounds cool),
we have to talk about some procedural aspects.

1) mailing list policy

   I propose to have an open NMRG mailing list policy. This means that
   the mailing list archive will be publically accessible from the NMRG
   web page. (I plan to generate a hypermail index so that it is easier
   to browse the archive using the mouse.)

2) meetings

   We need to decide where and when we want to have face-to-face
   meetings. Its usually a good idea to meet at events such as 
   conference, workshops, or IETF meetings in order to reduce
   travel times and travel costs. Possible events are:

	May 24-28, 1999		IM '99 Boston
	July 12-16, 1999	45. IETF Oslo
	October 11-13, 1999	DSOM '99 Z"urich
	November 8-12, 1999	46. IETF Washington

   I think many of us are attending IM '99 in Boston anyway. So I
   think it is a good place to have our first NMRG face-to-face
   meeting in Boston. I also think that Oslo is a good place since it
   is approx. 2 months behind our first meeting and thus a good chance
   to review how we doing as a group.

3) visibility

   We need to decide whether we want to announce our existence
   publically or not. I propose that the NMRG is publically visible.
   This means that it should be announced in appropriate places, e.g.
   the editorial of The SimpleTimes.

4) funding

   One idea behind becoming a research group with a well sounding name
   is to obtain funds in order to be able to work together. I know that
   some of us have very limited travel budgets to attend face-to-face
   meetings. Shall we try to organize some funding as a group or is it
   up to the individual members to organize fundings for themself? Is
   there interest (and a volunteer) to organize a proposal for public
   funding from programs such as TMR of the EU?

5) working documents

   I expect that this group will produce several working documents. I
   propose that we use the Internet-Drafts repository for our working
   documents, at least for technical specifications. This will give us
   a consistent naming system, it will make our progress visible, and
   it ensures that specs are accessible from all over the world. (Our
   NMRG documents will start with draft-irtf-nmrg followed by some
   document specific name and the usual version number.) 

   I plan to submit the SNMP over TCP spec to the ID repository next
   week as a first result of the NMRG.

There may be other issues we need to talk about. But I think this is
enough for now to get things started. (Feel free to bring up any other
topics you think are important.)
							Juergen
-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  [email-masked] http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw
Technical University Braunschweig, Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.        (Tel. +49 531 / 391 3289)
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:25:06 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Call for nominations for IRTF Chair]
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Welcome on the NMGR mailing list. I just received the following email
from the IAB chair and I am forwarding it here as requested.

[This is also a good test to check if this mailing list really works.]

							Juergen
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 16:49:27 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: IBM Internet Division
To: Karen Sollins <[email-masked]>, Bob Braden <[email-masked]>,
        Susan Hares <[email-masked]>, Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>,
        Cecilia Preston <[email-masked]>,
        Clifford Lynch <[email-masked]>,
        Ran Canetti <[email-masked]>, Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>,
        Mark Handley <[email-masked]>, Sid Nag <[email-masked]>,
        Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>, IAB <[email-masked]>,
        Rob Austein <[email-masked]>, Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>,
        Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>, IESG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Call for nominations for IRTF Chair

To: all IRTF members, and other interested parties

(Research Group chairs, please forward to your groups).

Abel Weinrib has indicated his desire to step down as IRTF and IRSG
Chair. It falls to the IAB to appoint his successor, in accordance
with RFC 1601 and RFC 2014. The IAB is considering several
candidates, but solicits further nominations or self-nominations.
These should be addressed IN CONFIDENCE to me,
mailto:[email-masked] , by April 15, 1999.

(Please don't send your nomination to the cc list of this mail!)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Abel for his
efforts over the last several years.

     Brian Carpenter
     IAB Chair
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
!! This message is brought to you via the NMRG mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <[email-masked]>.