Subject: Re: [nmrg] Fwd: Web Service Description Requirements published
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:27:21 +0200
List-Id: Network Management Research Group <nmrg.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>

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

JP> FYI

JP>    http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/

Very interesting as they are going through a process very similar to
the SMIng process the SMIng WG went through in formalizing requirements.

/js

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

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:56:01 +0200
From: Luca Deri <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: NETikos S.p.A.
To: IRTF Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
CC: Rocco Carbone <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi all,
in my opinion:
- SOAP security is the second problem (hopefully somebody will fix this
in the coming years)
- SOAP complexity is the problem. I've played some experiments with it
some months ago and I can tell you that it's not simple to learn and
use. I understand that the complexity is necessary as it is very
powerful. However the problem remains. I still prefer to use XML-RPC
because it's simple to use, it's not OO, although SOAP is now one of the
hottest tech.

Some links:
- http://weblog.masukomi.org/writings/xml-rpc_vs_soap.htm
- http://www.xmlrpc.com/

The same problem applies to UDDI (http://www.uddi.org/) that's a mess
compared to LDAP.

Bottom line: XML is currently a hot technology. IMHO it's like Java
(Corba and many more) in the early days: you're cool if you're rewriting
all your stuff in Java. Today the same happens with XML. This trend will
last for a while until this technology fills a nicle (today Java is
basically used only on Java side apps) and a new technology comes.

Cheers, Luca

PS: Why do you want to move SOAP across a firewall? Aren't you just
happy enough of CodeRed &co?
PS2: If you want to check the content you need at least an XML proxy
(something like squid-XML). 

"J.P. Martin-Flatin" wrote:
> 
> Router filtering (i.e., filtering based on IP addresses and ports) is too
> coarse grained for organizations that are serious about security, so they
> run firewalls that look into the payload. Some ASICs can do pattern
> matching very fast, on the fly.
> 
> The argument that all protocols should be built on top of HTTP to traverse
> firewalls easily only stands for small and midsize enterprises. They use
> router filtering because they cannot afford full-blown firewalls, which
> cost a fortune, and because they lack the know-how to maintain such
> firewall systems.
> 
> JP
> 
> Frank Strauss wrote:
> > Making a packet filtering firewall look into the payload and parse the
> > HTTP content would be a bad and dangerous choice, since (a) HTTP
> > requests might look very differently so that safe filtering would
> > become very difficult and unreliable and (b) it would be too complex
> > and time consuming.
> 
> --
> !! 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: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:49:40 +0200
From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: IRTF Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] Fwd: Web Service Description Requirements published
Sender: [email-masked]

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Ann: Web Service Description Requirements published
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:45:56 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:43:57 -0700
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, 
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
CC: <[email-masked]>

The Web Service Description Working Group has published the first
working draft of its Web Service Description Requirements document:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/

We invite comments on this document at [email-masked].
We especially invite review and additional potential requirements from
the following groups:

   Web Services Architecture Working Group
   RDF Interest Group
   XForms Working Group

- Jonathan Marsh, WS Desc WG Chair

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:15:11 +0200
From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: IRTF Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Sender: [email-masked]

Router filtering (i.e., filtering based on IP addresses and ports) is too 
coarse grained for organizations that are serious about security, so they 
run firewalls that look into the payload. Some ASICs can do pattern 
matching very fast, on the fly.

The argument that all protocols should be built on top of HTTP to traverse 
firewalls easily only stands for small and midsize enterprises. They use 
router filtering because they cannot afford full-blown firewalls, which 
cost a fortune, and because they lack the know-how to maintain such 
firewall systems.

JP

Frank Strauss wrote:
> Making a packet filtering firewall look into the payload and parse the
> HTTP content would be a bad and dangerous choice, since (a) HTTP
> requests might look very differently so that safe filtering would
> become very difficult and unreliable and (b) it would be too complex
> and time consuming.

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>, "Nmrg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 10:37:13 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

soap is remote procedure call with in-flight modification allowed.  the word
"security" should not even be used in the same sentence.

randy

From: Frank Strauss <[email-masked]>
To: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>, "Nmrg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Date: 26 Apr 2002 16:34:12 +0200
Lines: 33
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi!

Aiko> Thanks for the pointer (http://www.prescod.net/rest/security.html). It
Aiko> seems the website argues that SOAP is less secure since it uses common
Aiko> and succesfull technology. The website proposes not to use such
Aiko> technology, but invent something new: security by obscurity!
Aiko> Great, I like that ;-)

I don't think, this is what SOAP opponents propose. They just point
out that the `benefit' of shipping SOAP via TCP port 80 (what many
people assiciate with using HTTP) is in fact a severe problem in some
environments.

>> "SOAP is designed to slip through firewalls as HTTP... This is
>> completely ridiculous from a security point of view.

Aiko> I think the main design decision was to run SOAP over HTTP. As a
Aiko> consequence, some firewalls may not be able to distinguish SOAP from
Aiko> other HTTP traffic. Wouldn't it be easy to create new firewalls /
Aiko> configure existing firewall such that  they recognize SOAP?? (by using
Aiko> different ports or look inside the HTTP packet)?

Using different ports even when the SOAP transport is HTTP would
probably be a solution to keep this kind of access control at the
firewall entity.

Making a packet filtering firewall look into the payload and parse the
HTTP content would be a bad and dangerous choice, since (a) HTTP
requests might look very differently so that safe filtering would
become very difficult and unreliable and (b) it would be too complex
and time consuming.

 -frank

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:58:06 +0200
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
CC: "Nmrg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi Bert

Thanks for the pointer (http://www.prescod.net/rest/security.html). It 
seems the website argues that SOAP is less secure since it uses common 
and succesfull technology. The website proposes not to use such 
technology, but invent something new: security by obscurity!
Great, I like that ;-)

> "SOAP is designed to slip through firewalls as HTTP... This is
> completely ridiculous from a security point of view.

I think the main design decision was to run SOAP over HTTP. As a 
consequence, some firewalls may not be able to distinguish SOAP from 
other HTTP traffic. Wouldn't it be easy to create new firewalls / 
configure existing firewall such that  they recognize SOAP?? (by using 
different ports or look inside the HTTP packet)?

Anyway, I'll have to read the website with more care (fun); we could have a nice discussion on this :-)

Have a nice weekend

Aiko

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:08:37 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> It's message is summarized:

Bert> "SOAP is designed to slip through firewalls as HTTP... This is
Bert> completely ridiculous from a security point of view.

People who understand networks well enough know that tunneling
everything over HTTP is a ridiculous concept. Unfortunately, these
people are in the minority and do not have the "handles" to control
the public opinion. So eventually even people who know better give in
and accept that running everything over HTTP is a feature.

(And some of those who do not give in start to work on protocols which
 drill holes into firewall on user requests. :-)

/js

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

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Nmrg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:57:23 +0200
Subject: [nmrg] SOAP and WEB Services
Sender: [email-masked]

Since we discussed this last weekend... here is some input

--------- 
Here's an example of some of the concerns about SOAP:
http://www.prescod.net/rest/security.html

It's message is summarized:

"SOAP is designed to slip through firewalls as HTTP... This is
completely ridiculous from a security point of view.

"Firewalls exist so that corporations can monitor what goes in and out.
If they wanted SOAP going in and out then they would configure their
firewalls that way. But instead of making the reasoned argument to CIOs
that SOAP is safe and should go through firewalls, it is instead
tunneled over HTTP. This moves the decision out of the hands of the CIOs
and into the hands of the software developer."

and 

"The Web Services world must slow down and consider the security
implications of its creations with much more rigour. "

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:22:11 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] meeting info
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:

Juergen> (2) I would like to remind people that they prepare a short
Juergen> statement how they envision networks to be managed in 5-10
Juergen> years from now.

Just to clarify: I am trying to get a discussion of visions going. The
statement "everything will be the same as today, perhaps a bit worse"
does not really count in this respect (even if one can argue that this
is the most realistic scenario ;-). So please think a bit about the
vision you will present and be prepared to defend it.

I have been told that buying train tickets can actually take some time
since you usually end up standing in a line. So it is a good idea to
either buy the ticket this evening or to be at the station early
enough.

/js

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

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:03:54 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] meeting info
Sender: [email-masked]

Some information and reminders for the upcoming meeting:

(1) There is a train running from Florence to Pisa which leaves
    Florence at 9:25 and which arrives in Pisa around 10:30. I suggest
    we take this train - even if this means to start a bit late in
    case it takes more than 30 minutes to check into the hotels and
    to find the meeting site.

(2) I would like to remind people that they prepare a short statement
    how they envision networks to be managed in 5-10 years from now.

(3) Some people approached me in Florence asking me to reorder the
    agenda. I am open for any changes and thus would like to add
    agenda bashing as agenda item 0.

/js

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:30:28 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] pisa meeting
Sender: [email-masked]

Below is the final agenda. Note that I did not put in time estimates
for the various agenda items. This is on purpose since I am not sure
how we fill in the open positions. Note that Dave Perkins won't attend
- but perhaps he contributes electronically or submits slides with his
points to the list prior to the meeting. Dave Harrington won't be in
Pisa, but Bert Wijnen will be in Florence and Pisa.

I propose that we start the meeting at 11:00 am in Pisa since some
people will leave the move from Florence to Pisa on Friday morning.
Starting at 11:00 am gives enough time to switch hotels and to move to
Pisa and it still allows to go through some of the status reports
before we have lunch together.

I wish you all a good trip to Pisa/Florence.

/js

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

   10th NMRG Meeting in Pisa
   
     The 10th NMRG meeting will take place in [1]Pisa (Italy) on April
     19-20 2002, just after the [2]NOMS 2002 conference. The meeting
     will start at 11:00 am on April 19th.
     
     The address of the meeting place:
     
     NETikos
     Via Matteucci 34/b
     Pisa, Italy
     
     How to get to the meeting place:
     
     Take the train "Firenze SMN -> Pisa Centrale". Once in Pisa you can
     take a taxi to here (it will cost ~5 Euros). Once here you'll see a
     relatively big building, flat (at the bottom there's a shop called
     Media World that is the equivalent of the German Media Markt) with
     2 (sort of) towers. Between the two towers there's a (sort of)
     gallery. In the middle of the gallery there's the entrance. You
     take the lift up to NETikos. The meeting will take place in the
     meeting room at the 4th floor: once out of the lift you must ring
     the bell. Otherwise at the 5th and 6th floor you can ask at the
     reception. For a map of Pisa go to
     [3]http://mappe.virgilio.it/mappe/index.html and select Pisa (it's
     in Italian but quite strightforward).
     
     Accomodation:
     
     [4]http://www.pisaonline.it/Pisa/Hotels.htm
     
     Flight:
     
     The airport in Florence has a rather short runway and it's located
     in a very bad place. If you can, choose Pisa (there are direct
     daily flight to/from London,Frankfurt,Rome,Milan) and then from the
     Pisa Airport you take the train (it's inside the airport itself) to
     Florence (Pisa Airport -> Center of Florence takes a bit more that
     Florence Airport -> Center of Florence). The train ticket (1 way)
     will not cost much (< 10 Euros). For more info
     [5]http://www.trenitalia.com/.
     
     Agenda:
    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 (Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin)
          + Universal Alarm Model (all)
    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.
       We are going 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.
       
     Expected Participants:
     
     * Jean-Philippe Martin-Flatin (independent consultant)
     * Marcus Brunner (NEC C&C Research)
     * Juergen Schoenwaelder (University of Osnabrueck)
     * John Strassner (Intelliden)
     * Szabolcs Boros (University of Twente)
     * Luca Deri (NETikos S.p.A.)
     * Frank Strauss (TU Braunschweig)
     * Dave Harrington (Enterasys) [no]
     * Bert Wijnen (Lucent Technologies)
     * Aiko Pras (University of Twente) [maybe]
     * Dave Perkins (Riverstone) [no]
     * Andrea Westerinen (Cisco Systems) [no]
     * Joseph L Hellerstein (IBM Research) [no]
     * Wes Hardaker (Network Associates) [no]
       
     The local host of this meeting [6]NETikos. Our contact is [7]Luca
     Deri.
     
   © IBR, TU Braunschweig, last updated 09-04-2002 17:28:58 by Juergen
   Schoenwaelder <[8][email-masked]>

References

   1. http://www.pisaonline.it/
   2. http://www.comsoc.org/confs/noms/2002/index.html
   3. http://mappe.virgilio.it/mappe/index.html
   4. http://www.pisaonline.it/Pisa/Hotels.htm
   5. http://www.trenitalia.com/
   6. http://www.netikos.com/
   7. mailto:[email-masked]
   8. mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 19:28:43 -0500
From: "Dave Sidor"<[email-masked]>
Organization: Nortel Networks
To: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
CC: "NMRG (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] nmrg agenda
Sender: [email-masked]

David et al,

Re your item 5, you may interested to know that for at least 1-2 years
telecom industry standards have moved beyond CMIP and now view CORBA
GIOP and IDL as the NM technology of choice. That is true of ITU-T SG 4,
the current owner of CMIP (X.700 series), and also of 3GPP SA5
responsible for 3G UMTS wireless. In addition, the TeleManagement Forum
has issued some respected CORBA specs as well. And XML is not far
behind.

The prime motivation in my view for this change is to take advantage of
an industrial-strength IT technologies to support management systems
built from OTS components.

Hope things go well with your father.

Dave Sidor

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "NMRG (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:19:16 -0500 
Subject: [nmrg] change of plans
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_01C1DB4C.D41C5AB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi,

Late-breaking news. I will NOT be attending the NMRG meeting.
My father has been hospitalized and the condition is serious, so I can't
make it.

David Harrington
Network Management Architect
Office of the CTO
Enterasys Networks

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DB4C.D41C5AB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>change of plans</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Late-breaking news. I will NOT be attending the NMRG meeting.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>My father has been hospitalized and the condition is serious, so I can't make it.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>David Harrington</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Network Management Architect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Office of the CTO</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Enterasys Networks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DB4C.D41C5AB0--

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:56:15 -0800
To: "NMRG (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] nmrg agenda
Sender: [email-masked]

--=====================_10871917==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

HI,

Thanks for the interesting message.

Many people have observed that the IETF has become less "efficient"
as it has been growing in size. Where this is most visible is
in WGs that are creating designs instead of taking existing
designs and practices and creating standard that is a composition
using the most appropriate portions of these existing designs
and practices. Also, in the management area, an important aspect
is how a management system is used. But if the design creates a
technology that has never existed, how can you tell if the usability
(the operational aspects) are OK. One way to address these issues
is to have the IRTF be more active in creating designs, creating
implemenations, and also gathering feedback from deployments
before starting up a WG. With the experiences from the research
groups (and possibly some vendors), a WG can be much more efficient
in creating a standard (and the standard most likely will be
"better" - complete, implementable, unambiguous, useful, etc). 

Of course, funding this "applied research" is always an issue, and
it seems like network management doesn't get many research funding.

So, don't have the solutions, but do believe that a NMRG focused
designing and trying out approaches to contained problems would
be quite beneficial to the IETF and has a higher probability of
obtaining funding.

PS  I've gone back and forth about attending. Personal safety
given the terrorist threats and unrest in the middle-east is
a concern, as well as how effective will be the meeting. Ideally,
would like to "conference call" into the meeting. 

At 01:05 PM 4/3/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:
>Hi, 
>
>I'll be attending the NMRG, but not the NOMS meeting. I'll be vacationing in the area from the 10th on. 
>
>I'm interested in knowing the agenda. We seem to have an odd assortment of attendees, many noted for highly-focused interests. (Please note I did NOT say an assortment of odd attendees ;-) It should be interesting comparing views.
>
>I am interested in some discussion of NM futures, but I don't know how the nmrg fits into that now, given the dilbert-vision discussions and the IAB NM Workshop planned for this summer. For those not in the IETF, dilbert-vision is a group of interested persons, primarily leaders in the NM community, discussing visions for the future of network management. The IAB is the Internet Architectur Board, and they study general trends in Internet protocol designs, and hold workshops to discuss the overall needs and directions to provide guidance to the IESG, area directors and working groups. 
>
>Maybe this would be an excellent time to have such a discussion in the nmrg, as input to further discussion in the IETF venues. Here's a real chance to influence the IETF 50,000 foot vision for NM.
>
>I would like to raise some particular questions for discussion. 
>
>1) Existing NM protocols tend to differentiate different aspects: 
>        Knowing (data modeling), 
>        telling (message protocols), 
>        crunching (converting data into service or business information), and 
>        showing (user interfaces). 
>   Are these aspects well enough understood to know what the requirements are? 
>   Is there sufficient synergy between existing approaches for integration? 
>
>2) Established NM protocols (SNMP, CMIP, TL1) tend to be horizontal - they are designed to be general purpose to encourage reuse for multiple purposes. Some are arguing for a more vertical approach - monitoring versus static configuration versus dynamic configuration. Is one way more appropriate than the other? Does vertical differentiation limit the potential for reuse? Does the general purpose focus keep some protocols from being truly useful in vertical applications?
>
>3) Computer languages and software development have gone through four generations - binary, assembly, procedural, and object-oriented. 
>
>SNMP tends to be assembly-like with its peek/poke semantics; CLIs tend to be procedural; COPS and XML and SMING are focusing on bringing more object-orientedness to NM. Data-hiding is good in software development, but is it good for NM standards? Is the need for backwards compatibility with a 2nd-generation approach (SNMP) holding us back from providing useful alternatives? 
>
>4) The web really has led to a fifth generation of languages and software development - distributed processing. Obviously distributed processing has been around for a long time, but the web made it easy and ubiquitous. Web services are coming on strong, with Microsoft's .NET, Sun J2EE, and IBM's WebSphere battling it out in marketing hype. 
>
>Are any of the concepts real enough to apply to NM standards? Is NM just a special case of distributed processing? Should the industry be working to harness emerging distributed processing standards for NM use, rather than tweaking the assembly-style SMI, and trying to standardize procedural CLIs? 
>
>The web services marketechtures all seem to build on the use of virtual machines to support multi-platform portability. .NET focuses on multi-language support as well. Could the NM community design a "virtual machine" that could support multiple languages, or are the different languages too different to allow a language neutral approach?
>
>5) Years ago, SNMP was developed by selecting a subset of CMIP. We seem to be moving closer and closer to CMIP. Should the industry consider taking CMIP, and selecting a light-weight subset that is more powerful than SNMP? Or should the industry be studying CMIP to see what it did right and what it did wrong, so we don't remake SNMP in its likeness, including its faults?
>
>-- 
>All of these questions have been raised before, at least to a degree. Many people are strong proponents of one or more of these possible approaches. 
>
>What research can the NMRG do to help sort out the competing requirements, to help various standards bodies make progress at evaluating the tradeoffs, so they can develop standards for some of these problems?
>
>See you there, 
>
>David Harrington 
>Network Management Architect 
>Office of the CTO 
>Enterasys Networks 

Regards,
/david t. perkins

--=====================_10871917==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
HI,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the interesting message.<br>
<br>
Many people have observed that the IETF has become less
&quot;efficient&quot;<br>
as it has been growing in size. Where this is most visible is<br>
in WGs that are creating designs instead of taking existing<br>
designs and practices and creating standard that is a composition<br>
using the most appropriate portions of these existing designs<br>
and practices. Also, in the management area, an important aspect<br>
is how a management system is used. But if the design creates a<br>
technology that has never existed, how can you tell if the 
usability<br>
(the operational aspects) are OK. One way to address these issues<br>
is to have the IRTF be more active in creating designs, creating<br>
implemenations, and also gathering feedback from deployments<br>
before starting up a WG. With the experiences from the research<br>
groups (and possibly some vendors), a WG can be much more efficient<br>
in creating a standard (and the standard most likely will be<br>
&quot;better&quot; - complete, implementable, unambiguous, useful, etc).
<br>
<br>
Of course, funding this &quot;applied research&quot; is always an issue,
and<br>
it seems like network management doesn't get many research funding.<br>
<br>
So, don't have the solutions, but do believe that a NMRG focused<br>
designing and trying out approaches to contained problems would<br>
be quite beneficial to the IETF and has a higher probability of<br>
obtaining funding.<br>
<br>
PS&nbsp; I've gone back and forth about attending. Personal safety<br>
given the terrorist threats and unrest in the middle-east is<br>
a concern, as well as how effective will be the meeting. Ideally,<br>
would like to &quot;conference call&quot; into the meeting. <br>
<br>
At 01:05 PM 4/3/2002 -0500, Harrington, David wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Hi,</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>I'll be attending the NMRG, but not the NOMS meeting. I'll
be vacationing in the area from the 10th on.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>I'm interested in knowing the agenda. We seem to have an odd
assortment of attendees, many noted for highly-focused interests. (Please
note I did NOT say an assortment of odd attendees ;-) It should be
interesting comparing views.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>I am interested in some discussion of NM futures, but I
don't know how the nmrg fits into that now, given the dilbert-vision
discussions and the IAB NM Workshop planned for this summer. For those
not in the IETF, dilbert-vision is a group of interested persons,
primarily leaders in the NM community, discussing visions for the future
of network management. The IAB is the Internet Architectur Board, and
they study general trends in Internet protocol designs, and hold
workshops to discuss the overall needs and directions to provide guidance
to the IESG, area directors and working groups. <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>Maybe this would be an excellent time to have such a
discussion in the nmrg, as input to further discussion in the IETF
venues. Here's a real chance to influence the IETF 50,000 foot vision for
NM.<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>I would like to raise some particular questions for
discussion.</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>1) Existing NM protocols tend to differentiate different
aspects: </font><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font size=2>Knowing (data
modeling), </font><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font size=2>telling (message
protocols), </font><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font size=2>crunching
(converting data into service or business information), and </font><br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <font size=2>showing (user
interfaces). </font><br>
<font size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; Are these aspects well enough understood to
know what the requirements are?</font> <br>
<font size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; Is there sufficient synergy between existing
approaches for integration?</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>2) Established NM protocols (SNMP, CMIP, TL1) tend to be
horizontal - they are designed to be general purpose to encourage reuse
for multiple purposes. Some are arguing for a more vertical approach -
monitoring versus static configuration versus dynamic configuration. Is
one way more appropriate than the other? Does vertical differentiation
limit the potential for reuse? Does the general purpose focus keep some
protocols from being truly useful in vertical applications?<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>3) Computer languages and software development have gone
through four generations - binary, assembly, procedural, and
object-oriented. <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>SNMP tends to be assembly-like with its peek/poke semantics;
CLIs tend to be procedural; COPS and XML and SMING are focusing on
bringing more object-orientedness to NM. Data-hiding is good in software
development, but is it good for NM standards? Is the need for backwards
compatibility with a 2nd-generation approach (SNMP) holding us back from
providing useful alternatives? <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>4) The web really has led to a fifth generation of languages
and software development - distributed processing. Obviously distributed
processing has been around for a long time, but the web made it easy and
ubiquitous. Web services are coming on strong, with Microsoft's .NET, Sun
J2EE, and IBM's WebSphere battling it out in marketing hype. <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>Are any of the concepts real enough to apply to NM
standards? Is NM just a special case of distributed processing? Should
the industry be working to harness emerging distributed processing
standards for NM use, rather than tweaking the assembly-style SMI, and
trying to standardize procedural CLIs? <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>The web services marketechtures all seem to build on the use
of virtual machines to support multi-platform portability. .NET focuses
on multi-language support as well. Could the NM community design a
&quot;virtual machine&quot; that could support multiple languages, or are
the different languages too different to allow a language neutral
approach?<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>5) Years ago, SNMP was developed by selecting a subset of
CMIP. We seem to be moving closer and closer to CMIP. Should the industry
consider taking CMIP, and selecting a light-weight subset that is more
powerful than SNMP? Or should the industry be studying CMIP to see what
it did right and what it did wrong, so we don't remake SNMP in its
likeness, including its faults?<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>--</font> <br>
<font size=2>All of these questions have been raised before, at least to
a degree. Many people are strong proponents of one or more of these
possible approaches. <br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>What research can the NMRG do to help sort out the competing
requirements, to help various standards bodies make progress at
evaluating the tradeoffs, so they can develop standards for some of these
problems?<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>See you there,</font> <br>
<br>
<font size=2>David Harrington</font> <br>
<font size=2>Network Management Architect</font> <br>
<font size=2>Office of the CTO</font> <br>
<font size=2>Enterasys Networks</font> </blockquote><br>
Regards,<br>
/david t. perkins<br>
<br>
</html>

--=====================_10871917==_.ALT--

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "NMRG (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 13:05:35 -0500 
Subject: [nmrg] nmrg agenda
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_01C1DB3A.27721AA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi,

I'll be attending the NMRG, but not the NOMS meeting. I'll be vacationing in
the area from the 10th on.

I'm interested in knowing the agenda. We seem to have an odd assortment of
attendees, many noted for highly-focused interests. (Please note I did NOT
say an assortment of odd attendees ;-) It should be interesting comparing
views.

I am interested in some discussion of NM futures, but I don't know how the
nmrg fits into that now, given the dilbert-vision discussions and the IAB NM
Workshop planned for this summer. For those not in the IETF, dilbert-vision
is a group of interested persons, primarily leaders in the NM community,
discussing visions for the future of network management. The IAB is the
Internet Architectur Board, and they study general trends in Internet
protocol designs, and hold workshops to discuss the overall needs and
directions to provide guidance to the IESG, area directors and working
groups. 

Maybe this would be an excellent time to have such a discussion in the nmrg,
as input to further discussion in the IETF venues. Here's a real chance to
influence the IETF 50,000 foot vision for NM.

I would like to raise some particular questions for discussion.

1) Existing NM protocols tend to differentiate different aspects: 
	Knowing (data modeling), 
	telling (message protocols), 
	crunching (converting data into service or business information),
and 
	showing (user interfaces). 
   Are these aspects well enough understood to know what the requirements
are?
   Is there sufficient synergy between existing approaches for integration?

2) Established NM protocols (SNMP, CMIP, TL1) tend to be horizontal - they
are designed to be general purpose to encourage reuse for multiple purposes.
Some are arguing for a more vertical approach - monitoring versus static
configuration versus dynamic configuration. Is one way more appropriate than
the other? Does vertical differentiation limit the potential for reuse? Does
the general purpose focus keep some protocols from being truly useful in
vertical applications?

3) Computer languages and software development have gone through four
generations - binary, assembly, procedural, and object-oriented. 

SNMP tends to be assembly-like with its peek/poke semantics; CLIs tend to be
procedural; COPS and XML and SMING are focusing on bringing more
object-orientedness to NM. Data-hiding is good in software development, but
is it good for NM standards? Is the need for backwards compatibility with a
2nd-generation approach (SNMP) holding us back from providing useful
alternatives? 

4) The web really has led to a fifth generation of languages and software
development - distributed processing. Obviously distributed processing has
been around for a long time, but the web made it easy and ubiquitous. Web
services are coming on strong, with Microsoft's .NET, Sun J2EE, and IBM's
WebSphere battling it out in marketing hype. 

Are any of the concepts real enough to apply to NM standards? Is NM just a
special case of distributed processing? Should the industry be working to
harness emerging distributed processing standards for NM use, rather than
tweaking the assembly-style SMI, and trying to standardize procedural CLIs? 

The web services marketechtures all seem to build on the use of virtual
machines to support multi-platform portability. .NET focuses on
multi-language support as well. Could the NM community design a "virtual
machine" that could support multiple languages, or are the different
languages too different to allow a language neutral approach?

5) Years ago, SNMP was developed by selecting a subset of CMIP. We seem to
be moving closer and closer to CMIP. Should the industry consider taking
CMIP, and selecting a light-weight subset that is more powerful than SNMP?
Or should the industry be studying CMIP to see what it did right and what it
did wrong, so we don't remake SNMP in its likeness, including its faults?

--
All of these questions have been raised before, at least to a degree. Many
people are strong proponents of one or more of these possible approaches. 

What research can the NMRG do to help sort out the competing requirements,
to help various standards bodies make progress at evaluating the tradeoffs,
so they can develop standards for some of these problems?

See you there,

David Harrington
Network Management Architect
Office of the CTO
Enterasys Networks

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DB3A.27721AA0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
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=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>nmrg agenda</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'll be attending the NMRG, but not the NOMS meeting. =
I'll be vacationing in the area from the 10th on.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm interested in knowing the agenda. We seem to have =
an odd assortment of attendees, many noted for highly-focused =
interests. (Please note I did NOT say an assortment of odd attendees =
;-) It should be interesting comparing views.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am interested in some discussion of NM futures, but =
I don't know how the nmrg fits into that now, given the dilbert-vision =
discussions and the IAB NM Workshop planned for this summer. For those =
not in the IETF, dilbert-vision is a group of interested persons, =
primarily leaders in the NM community, discussing visions for the =
future of network management. The IAB is the Internet Architectur =
Board, and they study general trends in Internet protocol designs, and =
hold workshops to discuss the overall needs and directions to provide =
guidance to the IESG, area directors and working groups. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Maybe this would be an excellent time to have such a =
discussion in the nmrg, as input to further discussion in the IETF =
venues. Here's a real chance to influence the IETF 50,000 foot vision =
for NM.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I would like to raise some particular questions for =
discussion.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>1) Existing NM protocols tend to differentiate =
different aspects: </FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>Knowing =
(data modeling), </FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>telling =
(message protocols), </FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>crunching =
(converting data into service or business information), and </FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=3D2>showing =
(user interfaces). </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; Are these aspects well enough =
understood to know what the requirements are?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; Is there sufficient synergy between =
existing approaches for integration?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2) Established NM protocols (SNMP, CMIP, TL1) tend to =
be horizontal - they are designed to be general purpose to encourage =
reuse for multiple purposes. Some are arguing for a more vertical =
approach - monitoring versus static configuration versus dynamic =
configuration. Is one way more appropriate than the other? Does =
vertical differentiation limit the potential for reuse? Does the =
general purpose focus keep some protocols from being truly useful in =
vertical applications?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>3) Computer languages and software development have =
gone through four generations - binary, assembly, procedural, and =
object-oriented. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>SNMP tends to be assembly-like with its peek/poke =
semantics; CLIs tend to be procedural; COPS and XML and SMING are =
focusing on bringing more object-orientedness to NM. Data-hiding is =
good in software development, but is it good for NM standards? Is the =
need for backwards compatibility with a 2nd-generation approach (SNMP) =
holding us back from providing useful alternatives? </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>4) The web really has led to a fifth generation of =
languages and software development - distributed processing. Obviously =
distributed processing has been around for a long time, but the web =
made it easy and ubiquitous. Web services are coming on strong, with =
Microsoft's .NET, Sun J2EE, and IBM's WebSphere battling it out in =
marketing hype. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Are any of the concepts real enough to apply to NM =
standards? Is NM just a special case of distributed processing? Should =
the industry be working to harness emerging distributed processing =
standards for NM use, rather than tweaking the assembly-style SMI, and =
trying to standardize procedural CLIs? </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The web services marketechtures all seem to build on =
the use of virtual machines to support multi-platform portability. .NET =
focuses on multi-language support as well. Could the NM community =
design a &quot;virtual machine&quot; that could support multiple =
languages, or are the different languages too different to allow a =
language neutral approach?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>5) Years ago, SNMP was developed by selecting a =
subset of CMIP. We seem to be moving closer and closer to CMIP. Should =
the industry consider taking CMIP, and selecting a light-weight subset =
that is more powerful than SNMP? Or should the industry be studying =
CMIP to see what it did right and what it did wrong, so we don't remake =
SNMP in its likeness, including its faults?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>All of these questions have been raised before, at =
least to a degree. Many people are strong proponents of one or more of =
these possible approaches. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What research can the NMRG do to help sort out the =
competing requirements, to help various standards bodies make progress =
at evaluating the tradeoffs, so they can develop standards for some of =
these problems?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>See you there,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>David Harrington</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Network Management Architect</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Office of the CTO</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Enterasys Networks</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C1DB3A.27721AA0--