Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:51:53 +0200
List-Id: Network Management Research Group <nmrg.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>

>>>>> John Strassner writes:

John> I don't think that an IM constrains a DM. An IM guides the
John> development of a DM. An obvious counter-example is if an IM
John> specifies a composition class, and the target DM is a
John> directory. Directories will implement this using DIT
John> containment, which is a server directive, not by literally
John> following the IM and building an entry to represent the
John> composition class.

[...]

So are you trying to say that you agree with the following wordings?

> I suggest "organizations may use the scope of an IM to constrain the
> scope of a DM" or "organizations may use the contents of an
> information model to delimit the functionality that can be included in
> a data model."

/js

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

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
To: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>, "'Dave Sidor'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:44:55 -0600
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_01C24FF9.21D98630
Content-Type: text/plain

Hmmmmm.
 
I don't think that an IM constrains a DM. An IM guides the development of a
DM. An obvious counter-example is if an IM specifies a composition class,
and the target DM is a directory. Directories will implement this using DIT
containment, which is a server directive, not by literally following the IM
and building an entry to represent the composition class.
 
I think that the value of having a single IM is that multiple DMs can
implement the concepts defined in the IM in optimized ways that take
advantage of their particular storage, protocol, and other implementation
characteristics and still have a single, coherent notion of the data. If a
single IM is not used, there is no guarantee that the resulting DMs will
implement the same concepts. In fact, there's probably a good guarantee that
they won't, since in order to achieve this you have to correlate n different
IMs and then also correlate m different DMs.
 
regards,
John
 
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO  80903  USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
  FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:25 AM
To: 'Dave Sidor'
Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management Research Group
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status

Some standards bodies may require DMs to be "constrained" by the IM, but
that is organizational policy and not an attribute of the IM. 

I suggest "organizations may use the scope of an IM to constrain the scope
of a DM" or "organizations may use the contents of an information model to
delimit the functionality that can be included in a data model."

dbh 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Dave Sidor [mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:29 PM 
> To: Harrington, David 
> Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management Research Group 
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status 
> 
> 
> David, 
> 
> I agree that it may too strong to say that an IM always 
> constrains a DM. 
> Instead I suggest the text say "an IM may if agreed constrain 
> the DM." 
> 
> The intention of my previous comment ["their contents delimit the 
> functionality that can be included in the protocol-specific 
> information 
> models (or data models as you call them)"] was to point out 
> an important 
> role that an IM may perform in some standards forums, e.g., 
> in 3GPP SA5. 
> One interesting result if that condition holds true in a 
> standards body 
> is that a significant part of the intellectual debate, that 
> of semantics 
> including relationships, is focused then on the contents of the IM, 
> rather than the DM. 
> 
> Dave 
> 
> "Harrington, David" wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily 
> *constrains* the scope 
> > of a DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, constrain mean 
> 1) compel 
> > 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely. 
> > 
> > 
> > The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend 
> as needed. 
> > For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent core 
> > that effectively was an IM, supplemented by 
> protocol-specific DMs that 
> > extended the scope to include such details as instancing. 
> > 
> > "Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more 
> > accurate. 
> > 
> > dbh 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM 
> > > To: Network Management Research Group 
> > > Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The 
> > > only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit 
> > that 
> > > an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly). 
> > Aiko, 
> > > do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes? 
> > > 
> > > I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can 
> hand this 
> > > over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC. 
> > > 
> > > /js 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> > > <http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/
<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
<https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg> . 
> > > 
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C24FF9.21D98630
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4919.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Hmmmmm.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
don't think that an IM constrains a DM. An IM <EM>guides</EM> the development of 
a DM. An obvious counter-example is if an IM specifies a composition class, and 
the target DM is a directory. Directories will implement this using DIT 
containment, which is a server directive, not by literally following the IM and 
building an entry to represent the composition class.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
think that the value of having a single IM is that multiple DMs can implement 
the concepts defined in the IM in optimized ways that take advantage of their 
particular storage, protocol, and other implementation characteristics and still 
have a single, coherent notion of the data. If a single IM is not used, there is 
no guarantee that the resulting DMs will implement the same concepts. In fact, 
there's probably a good guarantee that they won't, since in order to achieve 
this you have to correlate n different IMs and then also correlate m different 
DMs.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>John</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=364393603-30082002><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>John Strassner<BR>Chief Strategy Officer<BR>Intelliden 
Corporation<BR>90 South Cascade Avenue<BR>Colorado Springs, CO&nbsp; 80903&nbsp; 
USA<BR>phone: +1.719.785.0648<BR>&nbsp; FAX: +1.719.785.0644<BR>email: 
[email-masked]<BR>&nbsp;</FONT> </P></SPAN><FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harrington, David 
[mailto:[email-masked]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:25 
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Dave Sidor'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network 
Management Research Group<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [nmrg] 
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR>
  <P><FONT size=2>Some standards bodies may require DMs to be "constrained" by 
  the IM, but that is organizational policy and not an attribute of the IM. 
  </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=2>I suggest "organizations may use the scope of an IM to 
  constrain the scope of a DM" or "organizations may use the contents of an 
  information model to delimit the functionality that can be included in a data 
  model."</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=2>dbh</FONT> </P>
  <P><FONT size=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  From: Dave Sidor [<A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:29 PM</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; To: Harrington, David</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; Cc: 
  'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management Research Group</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; David,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; I 
  agree that it may too strong to say that an IM always </FONT><BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; constrains a DM.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; Instead I suggest 
  the text say "an IM may if agreed constrain </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; the 
  DM." </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; The intention 
  of my previous comment ["their contents delimit the</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; functionality that can be included in the protocol-specific 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; information</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; models 
  (or data models as you call them)"] was to point out </FONT><BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; an important</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; role that an IM may 
  perform in some standards forums, e.g., </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; in 3GPP 
  SA5.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; One interesting result if that condition 
  holds true in a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; standards body</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; is that a significant part of the intellectual debate, that 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; of semantics</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  including relationships, is focused then on the contents of the IM,</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; rather than the DM. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; Dave</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; "Harrington, David" wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; Hi,</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; I don't feel comfortable 
  that an IM necessarily </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; *constrains* the 
  scope</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; of a DM. According to the Oxford 
  Dictionary, constrain mean </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 1) compel</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely.</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; as needed.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; For 
  example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent core</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; that effectively was an IM, supplemented by 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; protocol-specific DMs that</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; extended the scope to include such details as 
  instancing.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  &gt; "Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; accurate.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; dbh</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<A 
  href="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; To: Network Management Research Group</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt 
  status</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  &gt; &gt; No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. 
  The</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; only issue I have still on my list 
  is that we should be explicit</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; that</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I 
  recall that correctly).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; Aiko,</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; do you have any proposals for concrete wording 
  changes?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
  &gt; &gt; I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can 
  </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>&gt; hand this</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; 
  over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; /js</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; 
  --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Juergen Schoenwaelder</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; &lt;<A target=_blank 
  href="http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/">http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/</A>&gt;</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! 
  This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list.</FONT> <BR><FONT 
  size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. 
  To</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; unsubscribe or adjust</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! your settings, send a mail message 
  to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; 
  &lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! 
  or look at <A target=_blank 
  href="https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg">https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg</A>.</FONT> 
  <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>&gt; 
</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C24FF9.21D98630--

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:24:42 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

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

Wijnen> One could make the claim that if one fully wants to
Wijnen> understand what the document is writing about that one should
Wijnen> read SMI, SPPI, CIM maybe others.

So is there someone unhappy if we 

a) make all the references for SMI, SPPI, CIM, GDMO, ASN.1, UML, and
   the IETF standards process normative and

b) the rest informative?

Or are there any other proposals?

[Juergen who just learned how to do that with the xml2rfc typesetter. ;-]

/js

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

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:51:30 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]

> Bert> Mmm... is that so... what RFC-Editor says is normative is every
> Bert> document that you MUST understand in order to understand the doc
> Bert> that is referencing it. So the fact that this document is
> Bert> targeted as Informational does not imply that there could be no
> Bert> normative references.
> 
> I am always surprised what the various keywords in the RFC series mean
> to different people and I pretty much prefer to stay out of these
> discussions as much as I can.
> 
Sounds smart to me... 

> What do you think are normative/informational references in this
> document? I am totally flexible here. :-)
> 
One could make the claim that if one fully wants to understand what
the document is writing about that one should read SMI, SPPI, CIM
maybe others. 

But I can live with making them Informational.

The requirement for normative references is that they are stable 
documents (so an I-D would not be allowed). For STDs track we want
them to be at same maturity level as well. For informative, RFC
editor also accepts "work in progress" ptrs.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:27:49 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] junoscript pointer
Sender: [email-masked]

I have added 

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafer-js-xml-api-00.txt

to the background reading list for the upcoming meeting.

/js

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

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:49:48 -0400
From: "Dave Sidor" <[email-masked]>
Organization: Nortel Networks
To: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
CC: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

David,

I agree. While I prefer the second option you proposed, either is OK.

Dave

"Harrington, David" wrote:
> 
> Some standards bodies may require DMs to be "constrained" by the IM,
> but that is organizational policy and not an attribute of the IM.
> 
> I suggest "organizations may use the scope of an IM to constrain the
> scope of a DM" or "organizations may use the contents of an
> information model to delimit the functionality that can be included in
> a data model."
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:29 PM
> > To: Harrington, David
> > Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management Research Group
> > Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I agree that it may too strong to say that an IM always
> > constrains a DM.
> > Instead I suggest the text say "an IM may if agreed constrain
> > the DM."
> >
> > The intention of my previous comment ["their contents delimit the
> > functionality that can be included in the protocol-specific
> > information
> > models (or data models as you call them)"] was to point out
> > an important
> > role that an IM may perform in some standards forums, e.g.,
> > in 3GPP SA5.
> > One interesting result if that condition holds true in a
> > standards body
> > is that a significant part of the intellectual debate, that
> > of semantics
> > including relationships, is focused then on the contents of the IM,
> > rather than the DM.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > "Harrington, David" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily
> > *constrains* the scope
> > > of a DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, constrain mean
> > 1) compel
> > > 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely.
> > >
> > >
> > > The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend
> > as needed.
> > > For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent
> core
> > > that effectively was an IM, supplemented by
> > protocol-specific DMs that
> > > extended the scope to include such details as instancing.
> > >
> > > "Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more
> > > accurate.
> > >
> > > dbh
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM
> > > > To: Network Management Research Group
> > > > Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt.
> The
> > > > only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit
> 
> > > that
> > > > an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly).
> 
> > > Aiko,
> > > > do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?
> > > >
> > > > I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can
> > hand this
> > > > over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.
> > > >
> > > > /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.
> 
> > > >
> >

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Dave Sidor'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:24:50 -0400
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_01C24F80.FAB8A448
Content-Type: text/plain

Some standards bodies may require DMs to be "constrained" by the IM, but
that is organizational policy and not an attribute of the IM. 

I suggest "organizations may use the scope of an IM to constrain the scope
of a DM" or "organizations may use the contents of an information model to
delimit the functionality that can be included in a data model."

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Sidor [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:29 PM
> To: Harrington, David
> Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management Research Group
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I agree that it may too strong to say that an IM always 
> constrains a DM.
> Instead I suggest the text say "an IM may if agreed constrain 
> the DM." 
> 
> The intention of my previous comment ["their contents delimit the
> functionality that can be included in the protocol-specific 
> information
> models (or data models as you call them)"] was to point out 
> an important
> role that an IM may perform in some standards forums, e.g., 
> in 3GPP SA5.
> One interesting result if that condition holds true in a 
> standards body
> is that a significant part of the intellectual debate, that 
> of semantics
> including relationships, is focused then on the contents of the IM,
> rather than the DM. 
> 
> Dave
> 
> "Harrington, David" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily 
> *constrains* the scope
> > of a DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, constrain mean 
> 1) compel
> > 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely.
> > 
> > 
> > The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend 
> as needed.
> > For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent core
> > that effectively was an IM, supplemented by 
> protocol-specific DMs that
> > extended the scope to include such details as instancing.
> > 
> > "Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more
> > accurate.
> > 
> > dbh
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM
> > > To: Network Management Research Group
> > > Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The
> > > only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit
> > that
> > > an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly).
> > Aiko,
> > > do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?
> > >
> > > I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can 
> hand this
> > > over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.
> > >
> > > /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.
> > >
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C24F80.FAB8A448
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 =
5.5.2655.35">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Some standards bodies may require DMs to be =
&quot;constrained&quot; by the IM, but that is organizational policy =
and not an attribute of the IM. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I suggest &quot;organizations may use the scope of an =
IM to constrain the scope of a DM&quot; or &quot;organizations may use =
the contents of an information model to delimit the functionality that =
can be included in a data model.&quot;</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Dave Sidor [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:djsidor@nortelnetworks=
.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:29 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: Harrington, David</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cc: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; Network Management =
Research Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [nmrg] =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; David,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I agree that it may too strong to say that an =
IM always </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; constrains a DM.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Instead I suggest the text say &quot;an IM may =
if agreed constrain </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the DM.&quot; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The intention of my previous comment =
[&quot;their contents delimit the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; functionality that can be included in the =
protocol-specific </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; information</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; models (or data models as you call them)&quot;] =
was to point out </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; an important</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; role that an IM may perform in some standards =
forums, e.g., </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; in 3GPP SA5.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; One interesting result if that condition holds =
true in a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; standards body</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; is that a significant part of the intellectual =
debate, that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of semantics</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; including relationships, is focused then on the =
contents of the IM,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; rather than the DM. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Dave</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &quot;Harrington, David&quot; wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Hi,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; I don't feel comfortable that an IM =
necessarily </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; *constrains* the scope</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; of a DM. According to the Oxford =
Dictionary, constrain mean </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1) compel</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict =
severely.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; The scope is one attribute of the IM, =
which a DM may extend </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; as needed.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a =
protocol-independent core</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; that effectively was an IM, supplemented =
by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; protocol-specific DMs that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; extended the scope to include such details =
as instancing.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &quot;Characterizes the scope&quot; or =
&quot;describes the scope&quot; may be more</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; accurate.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; dbh</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</=
A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 =
AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; To: Network Management Research =
Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Subject: [nmrg] =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; No further issues were raised on =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; only issue I have still on my list is =
that we should be explicit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; an IM constraints the scope of DMs =
(if I recall that correctly).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Aiko,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; do you have any proposals for =
concrete wording changes?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; I would like to spin a new version =
quickly so that we can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; hand this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; over to the RFC editor for =
publication as Informational RFC.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; /js</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Juergen Schoenwaelder</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; &lt;<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/</A>&g=
t;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! This message is brought to you via =
the `nmrg' mailing list.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! Please do not reply to this =
message to unsubscribe. To</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; unsubscribe or adjust</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; !! your settings, send a mail message =
to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &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; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C24F80.FAB8A448--

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:29:21 -0400
From: "Dave Sidor" <[email-masked]>
Organization: Nortel Networks
To: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
CC: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

David,

I agree that it may too strong to say that an IM always constrains a DM.
Instead I suggest the text say "an IM may if agreed constrain the DM." 

The intention of my previous comment ["their contents delimit the
functionality that can be included in the protocol-specific information
models (or data models as you call them)"] was to point out an important
role that an IM may perform in some standards forums, e.g., in 3GPP SA5.
One interesting result if that condition holds true in a standards body
is that a significant part of the intellectual debate, that of semantics
including relationships, is focused then on the contents of the IM,
rather than the DM. 

Dave

"Harrington, David" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily *constrains* the scope
> of a DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, constrain mean 1) compel
> 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely.
> 
> 
> The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend as needed.
> For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent core
> that effectively was an IM, supplemented by protocol-specific DMs that
> extended the scope to include such details as instancing.
> 
> "Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more
> accurate.
> 
> dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM
> > To: Network Management Research Group
> > Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> >
> >
> >
> > No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The
> > only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit
> that
> > an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly).
> Aiko,
> > do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?
> >
> > I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can hand this
> > over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.
> >
> > /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.
> >

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:26:59 -0400
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_01C24F70.841CF4E1
Content-Type: text/plain

Hi,

I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily *constrains* the scope of a
DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, constrain mean 1) compel 2) confine
forcibly or 3) restrict severely. 
 
The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may extend as needed. For
example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a protocol-independent core that
effectively was an IM, supplemented by protocol-specific DMs that extended
the scope to include such details as instancing.

"Characterizes the scope" or "describes the scope" may be more accurate.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM
> To: Network Management Research Group
> Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> 
> 
> 
> No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The
> only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit that
> an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly). Aiko,
> do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?
> 
> I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can hand this
> over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.
> 
> /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.
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C24F70.841CF4E1
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 =
5.5.2655.35">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I don't feel comfortable that an IM necessarily =
*constrains* the scope of a DM. According to the Oxford Dictionary, =
constrain mean 1) compel 2) confine forcibly or 3) restrict severely. =
</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The scope is one attribute of the IM, which a DM may =
extend as needed. For example, the NMRG-SMING proposal had a =
protocol-independent core that effectively was an IM, supplemented by =
protocol-specific DMs that extended the scope to include such details =
as instancing.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Characterizes the scope&quot; or =
&quot;describes the scope&quot; may be more accurate.</FONT>
</P>

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

<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: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:44 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: Network Management Research Group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt =
status</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; No further issues were raised on =
draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; only issue I have still on my list is that we =
should be explicit that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall =
that correctly). Aiko,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; do you have any proposals for concrete wording =
changes?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I would like to spin a new version quickly so =
that we can hand this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; over to the RFC editor for publication as =
Informational RFC.</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; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &lt;<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/</A>&g=
t;</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_01C24F70.841CF4E1--

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:23:03 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

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

Bert> Mmm... is that so... what RFC-Editor says is normative is every
Bert> document that you MUST understand in order to understand the doc
Bert> that is referencing it. So the fact that this document is
Bert> targeted as Informational does not imply that there could be no
Bert> normative references.

I am always surprised what the various keywords in the RFC series mean
to different people and I pretty much prefer to stay out of these
discussions as much as I can.

What do you think are normative/informational references in this
document? I am totally flexible here. :-)

/js

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

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:02:53 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]

> Bert> Not sure how much pushback the RFC-Editor will/may give.  But
> Bert> according to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html they want
> Bert> references split in normative and informative.
> 
> Everything is informative by the very nature of the document. I guess
> it is time that I figure out how to get my typesetting system to
> create two references sections...
> 
Mmm... is that so... what RFC-Editor says is normative is every document
that you MUST understand in order to understand the doc that is
referencing it. So the fact that thsi document is targeted as Informational
does not imply that there could be no normative references.

That said, if you think that there are indeed only informative refs,
then just make the section title "Informative References" and it
will make RFc-Editor happy (I think).

> Bert> Further, you (correctly I think) talk about "MIB modules" (as
> Bert> opposed to MIBs). Therefor it might be good to also use the term
> Bert> PIB modules instead of "Policy Information Bases (PIBs)."
> Bert> Mmmm.. then later I also see "Management Information Bases".  I
> Bert> think we view it as "there is one MIB", and there are multiple
> Bert> MIB Modules. Same for one PIB and multiple PIB Modules. This is
> Bert> in sect 4.
> 
> I searched for all occurences of [MB]IB[s] and tried to fix the
> wordings to make things clear and consistent.
> 
> Bert> Were you going to be specific about which version of SMIng was
> Bert> "protocol neutral" ? Cause I think the first version was not
> Bert> protocol neutral, and the SMIng WG is again moving away from the
> Bert> "protocol neutral" base (as you do state).
> 
> The document says the "SMIng language designed by the NMRG". The pre
> NMRG version in Frank's diploma thesis is the version which was not
> protocol neutral. Do you think it is important to have this in the
> document?
>   
Not really... after I scribbled that down I did see that there was
wording that SMIng WG is moving away again from "protocol neutral",
so that makes it kind of clear that the final result from SMIng 
may not be what you are referring to. I guess, if you could keep
a version of the protocol neutral docs at some stable place, then
you could point to them so that people have a chance to look at
what it looked like. Up to you.

> Bert> I am pretty sure the document will not be approved without a
> Bert> Security Considerations section.
> 
> I just created one:
> 
> : 5. Security Considerations
> :
> :    This document discusses the terms Information Model and 
> Data Model.
> :    These terms themself do not have any security impact on 
> the Internet.
> 
Thanks,
Bert
> The complete current snapshot is at:
> 
> http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/im-dm.txt
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder    
<http://www.informatik.uni-osnabrueck.de/schoenw/>

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:28:14 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

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

Bert> Sorry for my (very) late reaction. A few nits that you migth
Bert> want to address if you do another rev.

Bert> Not sure how much pushback the RFC-Editor will/may give.  But
Bert> according to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html they want
Bert> references split in normative and informative.

Everything is informative by the very nature of the document. I guess
it is time that I figure out how to get my typesetting system to
create two references sections...

Bert> Further, you (correctly I think) talk about "MIB modules" (as
Bert> opposed to MIBs). Therefor it might be good to also use the term
Bert> PIB modules instead of "Policy Information Bases (PIBs)."
Bert> Mmmm.. then later I also see "Management Information Bases".  I
Bert> think we view it as "there is one MIB", and there are multiple
Bert> MIB Modules. Same for one PIB and multiple PIB Modules. This is
Bert> in sect 4.

I searched for all occurences of [MB]IB[s] and tried to fix the
wordings to make things clear and consistent.

Bert> Were you going to be specific about which version of SMIng was
Bert> "protocol neutral" ? Cause I think the first version was not
Bert> protocol neutral, and the SMIng WG is again moving away from the
Bert> "protocol neutral" base (as you do state).

The document says the "SMIng language designed by the NMRG". The pre
NMRG version in Frank's diploma thesis is the version which was not
protocol neutral. Do you think it is important to have this in the
document?
  
Bert> I am pretty sure the document will not be approved without a
Bert> Security Considerations section.

I just created one:

: 5. Security Considerations
:
:    This document discusses the terms Information Model and Data Model.
:    These terms themself do not have any security impact on the Internet.

The complete current snapshot is at:

http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/im-dm.txt

/js

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

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:00:50 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]

Sorry for my (very) late reaction. A few nits that
you migth want to address if you do another rev.

Not sure how much pushback the RFC-Editor will/may give.
But according to: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
they want references split in normative and informative.

Further, you (correctly I think) talk about "MIB modules"
(as opposed to MIBs). Therefor it might be good to also
use the term PIB modules instead of "Policy Information 
Bases (PIBs)." Mmmm.. then later I also see "Management
Information Bases". 
I think we view it as "there is one MIB", and there are
multiple MIB Modules. Same for one PIB and multiple PIB
Modules. This is in sect 4.

Were you going to be specific about which version of SMIng
was "protocol neutral" ? Cause I think the first version
was not protocol neutral, and the SMIng WG is again
moving away from the "protocol neutral" base (as you do
state).
  
I am pretty sure the document will not be approved
without a Security Considerations section.

Hope this helps.
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: donderdag 29 augustus 2002 11:44
> To: Network Management Research Group
> Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
> 
> 
> 
> No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The
> only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit that
> an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly). Aiko,
> do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?
> 
> I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can hand this
> over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.
> 
> /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.
> 

Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:44:21 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt status
Sender: [email-masked]

No further issues were raised on draft-irtf-nmrg-im-dm-00.txt. The
only issue I have still on my list is that we should be explicit that
an IM constraints the scope of DMs (if I recall that correctly). Aiko,
do you have any proposals for concrete wording changes?

I would like to spin a new version quickly so that we can hand this
over to the RFC editor for publication as Informational RFC.

/js

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

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:11:50 +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] Re: 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Sender: [email-masked]

Juergen,

Do you have videoconferencing facilities at Osnabrueck? If so, would it be 
possible to have this meeting multicast over the MBone? Or perhaps even 
better, could we use Caltech's Virtual Rooms Videoconferencing System 
(VRVS)? It supports a number of collaboration tools on various platforms, 
including MBone vic and rat, H.323 Polycom and NetMeeting, QuickTime, and 
desktop sharing. See <http://www.vrvs.org/>.

Jean-Philippe

Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:49:54 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:
>>>>>
> 
> Juergen> Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept 15-16), do you
> Juergen> plan to participate?
> 
> Unfortunately, I won't be able to get away either.  My summer has
> spent most of my travel time and I'm a bit strapped for both time and
> finances for a trip to Europe.
> 
> This group is a good candidate for multicast meetings.  Now, if I
> could only get multicast to my house.

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Organization: Network Associates - NAI Labs
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:46:43 -0700
Lines: 15
Subject: [nmrg] Re: 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:49:54 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Juergen> Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept 15-16), do you
Juergen> plan to participate?

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get away either.  My summer has
spent most of my travel time and I'm a bit strapped for both time and
finances for a trip to Europe.

This group is a good candidate for multicast meetings.  Now, if I
could only get multicast to my house.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:17:07 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] 11th nmrg meeting page updated
Sender: [email-masked]

I have updated the meeting page with more information concerning the
meeting place, travel information and accomodations. I am also trying
to track the people who said they would participate.

https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/meetings/2002/osnabrueck/

Aiko, the chair of this meeting, will be back from vacation next week
and I guess he will have more details on the agenda and so on.

I plan to provide 802.11b WLAN Internet access in the meeting room.
Does this work for all of you or is there someone who needs an
Ethernet drop cable? If you think you need a cable, please let me
know.

/js

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

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:15:34 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]

Unfortunately, no.  I cannot be out of the country for this length of time.
There are a few things on the burners for the DMTF and Cisco.  It seems that
many teams want to meet in September :-(.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> I have to be in London on Sept 23rd - so the 16-18th would be
Andrea> better (closer to the 23rd).

Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept 15-16), do you plan to
participate?

/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.

From: "Harrington, David" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:25:44 -0400
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_01C2491E.A1C324E0
Content-Type: text/plain

I will not be able to attend due to previous commitments.
dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and 
> management
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:
> 
> Andrea> I have to be in London on Sept 23rd - so the 16-18th would be 
> Andrea> better (closer to the 23rd).
> 
> Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept 15-16), do you 
> plan to participate?
> 
> /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.
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2491E.A1C324E0
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 =
5.5.2655.35">
<TITLE>RE: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and =
management</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I will not be able to attend due to previous =
commitments.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>dbh</FONT>
</P>

<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: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:50 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cc: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web =
technologies and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; management</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Andrea Westerinen =
writes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Andrea&gt; I have to be in London on Sept 23rd =
- so the 16-18th would be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Andrea&gt; better (closer to the 23rd).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept =
15-16), do you </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; plan to participate?</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; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &lt;<A HREF=3D"http://www.informatik.uni-" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.informatik.uni-</A>&gt; =
osnabrueck.de/schoenw/&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; !! </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; This message is brought to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; you via the `nmrg' mailing list. !! Please do =
not reply to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or =
adjust !! your </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; settings, send a mail message to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &lt;[email-masked]&gt; !! or look =
at </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; <A HREF=3D"https://www.ibr.cs.tu-" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">https://www.ibr.cs.tu-</A>&gt; =
bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C2491E.A1C324E0--

Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:49:54 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> I have to be in London on Sept 23rd - so the 16-18th would be
Andrea> better (closer to the 23rd).

Now that the meeting data has been fixed (Sept 15-16), do you plan to
participate?

/js

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

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] 11th nmrg meeting infos
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:28:37 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]

OK thanks for the info. I will probably arrive Sunday morning 
and I will leave late Monday.

Thanks,
Bert 

Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:44:21 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] 11th nmrg meeting infos
Sender: [email-masked]

It is time to nail down the meeting dates for the 11th NMRG
meeting. Given the feedback I have received so far, I conclude
the following:

(a) The official meeting will be limited to two days and take place at
    the University of Osnabrueck, Germany.

(b) The meeting days are September 15-16 (Sunday-Monday). We will
    start at 10:00 am on Sunday so that people who live close by
    (Aiko, Bert, Frank) can reach us on Sunday morning if they want
    to.

(c) I am happy to organize a dinner on Saturday evening for those who
    already show up on Saturday so that we can chat a little bit and
    have some beers.

(d) I am sure we can get Internet connectivity through the University
    network. I am happy to also organize Internet connectivity for
    folks some days before or after the meeting if they want to stay
    in Osnabrueck for some days.

(e) I will provide information about suitable hotels in a few days. We
    have some relatively cheap and clean hotels and also some more
    expensive ones with more service located in Osnabrueck and I doubt
    there will be a problem to find a good place to stay for you.

If you have additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

/js

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

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:03:12 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Sender: [email-masked]

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> I have to be in London on Sept 23rd - so the 16-18th would be
Andrea> better (closer to the 23rd).

Does "better" imply the other option (14-16) would also work for you?

/js

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

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>, "Network Management Research Group" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:04:28 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]

I have to be in London on Sept 23rd - so the 16-18th would be better (closer
to the 23rd).

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 9:05 AM
To: Network Management Research Group
Subject: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management

As you all know, the 11th NMRG meeting will focus on Web technologies
for network management and we right now trying to find a meeting date
where we can get a critical mass of good people into one place. The
meeting is planned to be held in Osnabrueck hosted by the University
of Osnabrueck. There are currently two proposals on the table due to
other events scheduled for September. The proposals are:

(a) September 14-16 (Saturday-Monday)

(b) September 16-18 (Monday-Wednesday)

The proposal (a) requires to spend a weekend in the nice city of
Osnabrueck. However, it has the advantage that the IETF OPS ADs
might be able to attend.

I would like to get quick feedback who on this list is interested to
attend this meeting and who would be able to make (a) and/or (b).

/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.

From: Frank Strauss <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Date: 12 Aug 2002 19:50:14 +0200
Lines: 8
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi!

> (a) September 14-16 (Saturday-Monday)
> (b) September 16-18 (Monday-Wednesday)

I intend to attend the meeting. Both proposals are fine with me.

 -frank

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:17:39 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]

> (a) September 14-16 (Saturday-Monday)

can do.  or sun/mon

> (b) September 16-18 (Monday-Wednesday)

have to leave tue morn to make ngtrans interim in bay area

> The proposal (a) requires to spend a weekend in the nice city of
> Osnabrueck. However, it has the advantage that the IETF OPS ADs 
> might be able to attend.

this may be viewed as a disadvantage :-)

randy

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:04:53 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] 11th NMRG meeting on web technologies and management
Sender: [email-masked]

As you all know, the 11th NMRG meeting will focus on Web technologies
for network management and we right now trying to find a meeting date
where we can get a critical mass of good people into one place. The
meeting is planned to be held in Osnabrueck hosted by the University
of Osnabrueck. There are currently two proposals on the table due to
other events scheduled for September. The proposals are:

(a) September 14-16 (Saturday-Monday)

(b) September 16-18 (Monday-Wednesday)

The proposal (a) requires to spend a weekend in the nice city of
Osnabrueck. However, it has the advantage that the IETF OPS ADs 
might be able to attend.

I would like to get quick feedback who on this list is interested to
attend this meeting and who would be able to make (a) and/or (b).

/js

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

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] Status for meeting
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:01:45 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]

Just a note - DMTF's WBEM uses XML for exchanging management data and the
CIM Schema for the backing semantics of the tags.  There is nothing magical
about XML - it is the data that matters.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of David T. Perkins
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:44 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] Status for meeting

HI,

I sent email to Rob and Phil from Juniper about the possibility of
being invited to the next group meeting to talk further about the
use of XML for management. They would be delighted to attend.
However, Rob's wife is expecting to deliver a baby any day now.

Are we any closer to working out the details so that travel
arrangements can be made?

Regards,
/david t. perkins

--
!! 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.

Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:43:48 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] Status for meeting
Sender: [email-masked]

HI,

I sent email to Rob and Phil from Juniper about the possibility of
being invited to the next group meeting to talk further about the 
use of XML for management. They would be delighted to attend.
However, Rob's wife is expecting to deliver a baby any day now.

Are we any closer to working out the details so that travel
arrangements can be made?

Regards,
/david t. perkins

Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:49:04 +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] 2002 ACM Workshop on XML Security
Sender: [email-masked]

http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigsac/ccs/CCS2002/CFP/XMLSec2002.html

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Nmrg (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:58:22 +0200 
Subject: [nmrg] FW: [T1M1ALL] [Fwd: tML/XML Status in T1M1]
Sender: [email-masked]

Just to keep you all informed about stuff going on in 
other places (T1M1 in this case).

Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Fargano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: woensdag 31 juli 2002 23:10
To: T1M1 ALL; T1 T1Email
Subject: [T1M1ALL] [Fwd: tML/XML Status in T1M1]

Folks:

Just FYI - I pulled together this brief status report on "tML in T1M1" for a
colleague in TCIF/ESOC for him to share in TCIF/ESOC as needed.

Mike

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fargano
Industry Standards Coordinator
Qwest Emerging Technologies
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: 303-541-5141
Numeric Pager (toll-free): 877-433-1561
Text Pager - 2-Way Short Message - Email: [email-masked]
Text Pager - Web Based: 8774331561 on the www.skytel.com web-site
Fax: 303-541-5351

----------Original Message-----
From: Michael Fargano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: woensdag 31 juli 2002 22:42
To: John Sanclaria
Subject: tML/XML Status in T1M1 - OSS Interconnection

John:

Per discussion, the T1M1 tML (XML based Telecom Markup Language) status is as follows (as related to OSS
Interconnection):

- tML Framework ITU-T Recommendation (M.3030) is in the ITU-T approval process. The document is posted as
follows:  ftp://ftp.t1.org/T1M1/NEW-T1M1.0/2m100022.doc . Once M.3030 is approved, T1M1 will formulate a
Committee T1 tML Framework (ANSI) Standard (i.e., "delta doc" standards based on M.3030).

- The UOM (Unified Ordering Model - Access Ordering - ASR) Application  is moving along steadily - expecting a
Ballot in September/October 2002. See attached for a detailed status taken from the latest T1M1.5 report.

- The tML Trouble Administration Application is moving steadily. See attached for a detailed status taken from
the latest T1M1.5 report.

- The tML DSL Service Provisioning Application has been in Red Status (i.e., jeopardy) for some time (due to the
industry down turn). T1M1 will likely move this work to an inactive state soon. See
ftp://ftp.t1.org/T1M1/NEW-T1M1.0/2M100910.txt  for a detailed status report.

Feel free to share this with the folks in TCIF.

Mike Fargano
T1M1 Chair

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fargano
Industry Standards Coordinator
Qwest Emerging Technologies
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: 303-541-5141
Numeric Pager (toll-free): 877-433-1561
Text Pager - 2-Way Short Message - Email: [email-masked]
Text Pager - Web Based: 8774331561 on the www.skytel.com web-site
Fax: 303-541-5351

************ UOM Status Taken from the Latest T1M1.5 Report  ************

1. Continued discussing UOM Vol. II working document, UOM Vol. II information model, and UOM-ASR Vol. III Schemas

- Agreement that the UOM Schemas follow the tML Framework (contribution 2m15063)
- Met with tML AHG, OBS and GTDD AHG

2. GTDD and tML AHG interim virtual meeting August 14th to discuss ways to create access databases from UOM
Schemas to help populate the GTDD

3. UOM Volume II (TCIF) and UOM Volume III (T1M1) Letter Ballot projected for September

4. Discussed UOM Vol. 4 (TCIF) related issues
- Same protocol stack as previously discussed, i.e. XML Body over TCP/IP, TLS and HTTP, SOAP
- TCIF Technology Support Committee should complete two documents in September:  Connectivity/Security (99016)
document and the XML transporter document

************ Trouble Admin Status Taken from the Latest T1M1.5 Report ************

Trouble Admin - Joint Meeting with TCIF:

- Discussions on SOAP being the protocol for transferring XML messages
-TCIF plans to make SOAP Header included in the envelope where URI represents the schema and code for the
operation
- Two choices discussed: define a generic set of operations similar to CMIP or let applications define what they
need. The second may be a preference for TCIF because each application may need different operations. No
conclusion reached. TCIF member plans to have a document for protocol profile in September.
- Need to decide once a choice is made, where the use of SOAP is to be documented assuming this is the selected
protocol for X interface
- Reviewed the output from interim meeting on the use cases and class definitions. Additional work to expand on
this draft
- Decision needed how to publish the output which is documented as html links
- Reviewed the input for a protocol to support general purpose paradigm (see M1-064) - further contributions
needed.
- An interim meeting is planned from July 29-31   to continue this effort and review the output of XML definition
based on agreements from interim meeting in May