Subject: Re: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa
From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:51:14 +0100
List-Id: Network Management Research Group <nmrg.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>

Please note that the phone number of Hotel D'Azeglio is +39/050/500310 and 
that they do not have non-smoking rooms. Luca found two hotels with 
non-smoking rooms:

- business hotel: Hotel Cavalieri (ph. +39/050/43290 - fax
+39/050/502242), EUR 139 per night

- touristic hotel: S.Croce in Fossabanda, (ph. +39/050/970911 - fax 
+39/050/9711044), EUR ~62 per night

JP

Luca Deri wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have received some emails regarding the accommodation in Pisa. I have
> asked around. If you want you can book at Hotel D'Azeglio (Ph.
> +39/050/500510 Fax +39/050/28017) that's a 4 stars hotel in the center
> of Pisa. The special price for NETikos is 80 Euro per night: please
> mention that you have a meeting here for getting this price.
> 
> Flight connections: you can fly from US -> Milan -> Pisa. There are
> direct flights operated by Alitalia from Milan to Pisa. For a timetable
> look at http://www.alitalia.it/. Then from Pisa you can go to Florence
> (the Hotel d'Azeglio is close to the train station) by train: the ticket
> costs 4.70 Euros (1 way) and it will take less than 1 hour.
> 
> Shall you have any problem while here, you can call me at my mobile
> phone +39/347/34.61.768
> 
> I assume all know that since March 1st the Italian currency is Euro (no
> Liras anymore).
> 
> Further questions?
> 
> Cheers, Luca

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:50:32 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] please post draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-08.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

Please post the following document are Internet Draft:

<http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-08.txt

Thank you.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:14:16 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting agenda (draft)
Sender: [email-masked]

Below is a draft agenda for the upcoming NMRG meeting. Comments are
welcome. I have not yet assigned time estimates - I first want to get
feedback.

Regarding time management, it would be nice to get feedback when we
want to start on Friday and when we plan to end on Saturday.  Is
someone attending or giving tutorials on Friday? Or can we start
earlier on Friday? When do people have to leave on Saturday?

Some items below are marked (?) because they have no names assigned
and I am looking for volunteers.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Agenda for the 10th NMRG Meeting (Pisa 2002):

1. Status Reports

   There are several documents we started and where we need to have
   status reports and develop a plan on how to proceed with them:

   - SNMP over TCP (Juergen Schoenwaelder)

   - SNMP Payload Compression (Juergen Schoenwaelder)

   - Subtree Retrieval (?)

   - Information Modeling vs. Data Modeling (Szabolcs Boros)

   Other activities what were or might be issues for the NMRG:

   - SMIng (Juergen Schoenwaelder / Frank Strauss)

   - SMI to XML and XML schema conversions (Frank Strauss)

2. Alarm Models

   The goal of this agenda item is to discuss and compare various
   existing and proposed alarm models. The focus is on the conceptual
   models being used, not on specific technical realisations of the
   models.

   - ITU Alarm Model(?)

   - IETF DISMAN Alarm Model (?)

   - CIM Alarm/Event Model (?)

   - Universal Alarm Model (?)

3. Network Management Visions

   There are quite some discussions going on in various places what
   the future (5-10 years) of network management will be. There are
   several different scenarios one can imagine and it might be
   worthwhile to develop a joint view of what the goals, influencing
   factors, dependencies and problems with various visions are.

   I would like to make an experiment: Each participant should think
   up one scenario and prepare a 5-10 minute presentation (1-2 slides)
   to describe the may ideas. Extreme positions are welcome - of
   course people should be able to defend their scenarios afterwards.

   - Presentation/Discussion of Scenarios (all)

   - Identification of impact factors (all)

   - Identification of research aspects (all)

4. Future of the NMRG

   We need to discuss whether the NMRG still works well or whether it
   is time to change its operational mode. Things to consider might be
   to invite new fresh people, to discuss future topics and research
   directions, or to revisit our current organization and mode of
   operation.

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:42:16 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] snmp over tcp (again)
Sender: [email-masked]

I have updated an ID which defines generic transport address types
yesterday. There is a somewhat pressing need in the IETF to get IPv6
definition standardized. Once this document moves forward (an I am an
optimist in this case), there is no need anymore to define constants
in the NMRG SNMP over TCP document. This has two major benefits:

- We can remove the MIB module from the SNMP over TCP document and all
  the boilerplate stuff that goes with it, which actually saves a few
  pages of text.

- We get IPv6 support for free.

- The SNMP over TCP document does not contain any NMRG specific
  definitions anymore, making a progression to standards track simpler.

I think it is worth to go this way and to submit another ID. This
won't slow things down since the document is on hold until the IETF
meeting this week is over. You can look at the updated SNMP over
TCP document at:

<http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-08.txt>

Please let me know quickly if someone happens to disagree with this
approach.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:42:04 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] 10th meeting participants
Sender: [email-masked]

I had to update the list of expected people for the next meeting.
Unfortunately, some people which I expected to attend can not make it
due to various reaons. I have updated the meeting Web page.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:06:52 +0100
From: Luca Deri <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: NETikos S.p.A.
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi all,
I have received some emails regarding the accommodation in Pisa. I have
asked around. If you want you can book at Hotel D'Azeglio (Ph.
+39/050/500510 Fax +39/050/28017) that's a 4 stars hotel in the center
of Pisa. The special price for NETikos is 80 Euro per night: please
mention that you have a meeting here for getting this price.

Flight connections: you can fly from US -> Milan -> Pisa. There are
direct flights operated by Alitalia from Milan to Pisa. For a timetable
look at http://www.alitalia.it/. Then from Pisa you can go to Florence
(the Hotel d'Azeglio is close to the train station) by train: the ticket
costs 4.70 Euros (1 way) and it will take less than 1 hour.

Shall you have any problem while here, you can call me at my mobile
phone +39/347/34.61.768

I assume all know that since March 1st the Italian currency is Euro (no
Liras anymore).

Further questions?

Cheers, Luca

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> We got the final OK from our how NETikos that the meeting can take
> place in Pisa. Luca provided some additional information which I have
> put on the meeting web page:
> 
>   http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/meetings/2002/pisa/
> 
> We know need to finalize the agenda. I will workout a proposal from
> the various emails I have seen and then you can all beat it up.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>
> 
> --
> !! 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 <[email-masked]>
> !! or look at https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.

-- 
Luca Deri                     NETikos S.p.A.
Via Matteucci 34/B	      56124 Pisa, Italy.
Ph. +39/050/968.639           Fax. +39/050/968.626
Personal: [email-masked]   Business: [email-masked]
WWW: http://www.lucaderi.org/ ICQ: 68183632
Hacker: someone who loves to program and enjoys being
clever about it - Richard Stallman

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:40:47 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] 10th nmrg meeting in pisa
Sender: [email-masked]

We got the final OK from our how NETikos that the meeting can take
place in Pisa. Luca provided some additional information which I have
put on the meeting web page:

  http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/meetings/2002/pisa/

We know need to finalize the agenda. I will workout a proposal from
the various emails I have seen and then you can all beat it up.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:21:29 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] next meeting location
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Harrington, David writes:

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

The meeting will be April 19-20 in Pisa. I am waiting for more info
from our host. Once I have it, I will setup and announce a web page
with all the details.

I will comment on the agenda discussions in another email.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:21:52 -0800
To: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] next meeting location
Sender: [email-masked]

--=====================_54057000==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

HI,

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

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

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

At 04:52 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:
>Hi, 
>
>I plan to attend. 
>I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is April 19-20 in Pisa. 
>
>Regarding the agenda, 
>Dave Perkins:   alarms & alarm management 
>Dave Perkins:   convergence of entity mib model and M.3100 models 
>Jean-Philippe:  update on universal information modeling 
>Juergen:          Why is network management different? 
>
>It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions engineered in the IETF.
>
>I generally consider that problems already being addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, especially a group that doesn't develop either set of standards.
>
>As a result, I'm concerned about spending time discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that discussion be held by the NMRG.
>
>There is an increasingly proposed use of XML information modeling for sharing information between applications (including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet coalesced into something that can be engineered.
>
>As a result, I find myself most interested in having the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for solutions, like  how do we continue to make information modeling part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? "Why is network management different?", is there anything more than smoke and mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? 
>
>Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the issues well enough to start engineering solutions.
>
>dbh 
>
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]] 
>> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM 
>> To: Network Management Research Group 
>> Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting - would it be a problem 
>> for you if we move the meeting from Florence to Pisa? 
>> 
>> Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make the logistics a bit 
>> simpler. 
>> 
>> Please drop me a note. 
>> 
>> /js 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder      University of Osnabrueck 
>> <[email-masked]>       Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science 
>> Phone: +49 541 969 2483    Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany 
>> Fax:   +49 541 969 2770    <<http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/>http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/> 
>> 

Regards,
/david t. perkins
--=====================_54057000==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
HI,<br>
<br>
The work in the DISMAN group on alarms is fatally flawed. They have
missed<br>
the fundamentals. This event has the possibility of bringing
together<br>
a set of people that can make a difference. I do not believe that
there<br>
is a solid book, article, paper, etc that ties it all together.<br>
If you believe differently, then point me to them.<br>
<br>
The convergence of the Entity MIB model and the ITU-T models is a
real<br>
world problem that needs work. It is not being addressed in the
IETF,<br>
and I doubt that it is being addressed in the ITU-T. Progressed
would<br>
be greatly appreciated.<br>
<br>
Both of these issues are important, and have some possibility of<br>
progress being made. <br>
<br>
At 04:52 PM 3/6/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Hi,</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>I plan to attend. </font><br>
<font size=2>I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is April
19-20 in Pisa.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>Regarding the agenda,</font> <br>
<font size=2>Dave Perkins:&nbsp;&nbsp; alarms &amp; alarm
management</font> <br>
<font size=2>Dave Perkins:&nbsp;&nbsp; convergence of entity mib model
and M.3100 models</font> <br>
<font size=2>Jean-Philippe:&nbsp; update on universal information
modeling</font> <br>
<font size=2>Juergen:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Why is network management different?</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to better
define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to establish
recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into units that
are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions engineered in the
IETF.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>I generally consider that problems already being addressed
by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in the
engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF
research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF
alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the
entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the need
for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, especially a
group that doesn't develop either set of standards.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>As a result, I'm concerned about spending time discussing
alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a group with
members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the viewpoints of
standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery together can be
useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of the ITU standards
writers are clearly delineated in their specifications already. If more
is needed, they could be invited to attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum,
IETF persons interested in having a discussion with ITU standards writers
could contact them and arrange to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a
strong need to have that discussion be held by the NMRG.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>There is an increasingly proposed use of XML information
modeling for sharing information between applications (including between
managers and agents). There are general purpose web services frameworks
like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. Operators have
expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not meeting their needs.
The dilbert list discussions have not yet coalesced into something that
can be engineered.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>As a result, I find myself most interested in having the
NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for
solutions, like&nbsp; how do we continue to make information modeling
part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by the
IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? &quot;Why is network
management different?&quot;, is there anything more than smoke and
mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services approach
move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions have
progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions in
working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions in
the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the issues
well enough to start engineering solutions.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>dbh</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]</font>
<br>
<font size=2>&gt; Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; To: Network Management Research Group</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting - would
it be a problem</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; for you if we move the meeting from Florence to
Pisa?</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make the
logistics a bit</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; simpler.</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; Please drop me a note.</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; /js</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; -- </font><br>
<font size=2>&gt; Juergen Schoenwaelder&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
University of Osnabrueck</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt;
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dept. of
Mathematics and Computer Science</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; Phone: +49 541 969 2483&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Albrechtstr.
28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany</font> <br>
<font size=2>&gt; Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp; +49 541 969 2770&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&lt;<a href="http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/">http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/</a>&gt;</font>
<br>
<font size=2>&gt; </font></blockquote><font size=2><br>
Regards,<br>
/david t. perkins</font></html>

--=====================_54057000==_.ALT--

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] next meeting location
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:52:36 -0500 
Sender: [email-masked]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960
Content-Type: text/plain

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dbh

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] next meeting location</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I plan to attend. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'd like to have confirmation that the meeting is =
April 19-20 in Pisa.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regarding the agenda,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Perkins:&nbsp;&nbsp; alarms &amp; alarm =
management</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dave Perkins:&nbsp;&nbsp; convergence of entity mib =
model and M.3100 models</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jean-Philippe:&nbsp; update on universal information =
modeling</FONT>
<BR><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>Juergen:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Why is network management different?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It is my feeling that the purpose of the IRTF is to =
better define the scope of fuzzy problems in networking, and to try to =
establish recommendations for how the problems can be broken down into =
units that are well-enough understood to be able to have solutions =
engineered in the IETF.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I generally consider that problems already being =
addressed by IETF working groups are clearly enough understood to be in =
the engineering process, and don't need the special insights of an IRTF =
research group like the NMRG. The convergence of the standards for IETF =
alarms and ITU alarms is being discussed in the DISMAN WG already; the =
entity mib is being discussed in the entity mib WG. I don't see the =
need for a research group to carry on the discussions as well, =
especially a group that doesn't develop either set of =
standards.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As a result, I'm concerned about spending time =
discussing alarms and the entity mib. I realize that the NMRG is a =
group with members from multiple standards bodies, and bringing the =
viewpoints of standards bodies regarding alarms and entity discovery =
together can be useful. However, it seems to me that the viewpoint of =
the ITU standards writers are clearly delineated in their =
specifications already. If more is needed, they could be invited to =
attend an IETF meeting. At a minimum, IETF persons interested in having =
a discussion with ITU standards writers could contact them and arrange =
to meet them during NOMS. I don't see a strong need to have that =
discussion be held by the NMRG.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There is an increasingly proposed use of XML =
information modeling for sharing information between applications =
(including between managers and agents). There are general purpose web =
services frameworks like J2EE and .NET that are gaining in mind-share. =
Operators have expressed concerns that standards-based NM is not =
meeting their needs. The dilbert list discussions have not yet =
coalesced into something that can be engineered.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As a result, I find myself most interested in having =
the NMRG focus on fuzzy issues for which there is growing demand for =
solutions, like&nbsp; how do we continue to make information modeling =
part of the standards process? what concrete steps could be taken by =
the IETF to integrate CLI and SNMP approaches? &quot;Why is network =
management different?&quot;, is there anything more than smoke and =
mirrors in the web services frameworks? and would a web-services =
approach move us closer to or further from the vision of the operators? =
</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Of course, if the IESG thinks the dilbert discussions =
have progressed far enough for the IETF to start engineering solutions =
in working groups, maybe we don't need some of the proposed discussions =
in the NMRG. I don't get the impression that the IETF understands the =
issues well enough to start engineering solutions.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>dbh</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</=
A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:34 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: Network Management Research Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [nmrg] next meeting location</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Those who plan to attend the next NMRG meeting =
- would it be a problem</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; for you if we move the meeting from Florence to =
Pisa?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Luca Deri is living in Pisa and this would make =
the logistics a bit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; simpler.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Please drop me a note.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; /js</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Juergen =
Schoenwaelder&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; University of =
Osnabrueck</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dept. of =
Mathematics and Computer Science</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Phone: +49 541 969 2483&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Fax:&nbsp;&nbsp; +49 541 969 =
2770&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &lt;<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/</A>&gt;</FONT=
>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; !! This message is brought to you via the =
`nmrg' mailing list.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; !! Please do not reply to this message to =
unsubscribe. To </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; unsubscribe or adjust</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; !! your settings, send a mail message to =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; !! or look at <A =
HREF=3D"https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg</A>.=
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C559.3A1D8960--

From: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:18:54 GMT
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] Re: SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC)
Sender: [email-masked]

Greetings,

We apologize for the inconvenience, but the IESG will not be available to
review your document until after the IETF proceedings.

For this reason, the RFC Editor will not be sending any documents to
the IESG for review until (25 March 2002).

Please note that you do NOT need to resubmit your document.

Thank you for your understanding.

RFC Editor

> From [email-masked]  Mon Mar  4 06:19:44 2002
> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:36 +0100
> X-Authentication-Warning: haerke.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de: schoenw set sender to [email-masked] using -f
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
> Subject: SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC)
> X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1
> Content-Length: 651
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you to publish
> 
>         Title           : SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping
>         Author(s)       : J. Schoenwaelder
>         Filename        : draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-07.txt
>         Pages           : 13
>         Date            : 28-Feb-02
> 
> as an Experimental RFC. This document has been produced by the Network
> Management Research Group (NMRG) of the IRTF.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      University of Osnabrueck
> <[email-masked]>       Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Phone: +49 541 969 2483    Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
> Fax:   +49 541 969 2770    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/>
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:36 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] SNMP over TCP (Experimental RFC)
Sender: [email-masked]

I would like to ask you to publish

        Title           : SNMP over TCP Transport Mapping
        Author(s)       : J. Schoenwaelder
        Filename        : draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-tcp-07.txt
        Pages           : 13
        Date            : 28-Feb-02

as an Experimental RFC. This document has been produced by the Network
Management Research Group (NMRG) of the IRTF.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      University of Osnabrueck
<[email-masked]>       Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
Phone: +49 541 969 2483    Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
Fax:   +49 541 969 2770    <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/>