Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Olivier Festor <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:12:22 +0200
List-Id: Network Management Research Group <nmrg.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:44:13PM +0200, Olivier Festor wrote:

> Concerning hotel reservations, there is absolutely no problem on july 30 
> August 1st. If I know the number of participants and the 
> arrival+departure dates, INRIA can make the reservation  for the 
> participants. Usually hotel rooms are between 45 - 65 Euros / night in 
> Nancy. I'll provide links as well on the web page next week.

I guess it will be simpler to have the address and phone number of
some suitable hotels so that people can book themself. This gets you
out of the loop for any late changes.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:44:13 +0200
From: Olivier Festor <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090509020405080804080705
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan & All,

If you arrive from abroad, you will land in Roissy - Charle De Gaulle 
Airport in Paris.
 From there you can take a suburb train (RER-B) that takes you to "Gare 
du Nord" Train station (journey ~35 minutes). From "Gare du Nord" you 
have to go to the "Gare de l'Est" train station. This takes 3 minutes by 
feet, 10 minutes by metro. Gare de l'Est is the train station which 
deserves all trains to the east of France. From there, just take a train 
to Nancy (2h40 minutes). I'll provide you with maps and other meeting 
details on Juergens Web page in 7 days from now (I will travel again 
next week).

If you land in Orly which is unusual except if you come from soemwhere 
else in France, things are a bit more complicated (i.e. you have to 
cross Paris since Orly is in the south and Gare de L'est in the 
North/Est). I'll put the metro data in the web for this.

Concerning hotel reservations, there is absolutely no problem on july 30 
August 1st. If I know the number of participants and the 
arrival+departure dates, INRIA can make the reservation  for the 
participants. Usually hotel rooms are between 45 - 65 Euros / night in 
Nancy. I'll provide links as well on the web page next week.

/Olivier

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

>On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:30:23AM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I plan to attend. Will there be hotel arrangements, or at least 
>>recommendations for Nancy? Also, some directions about how to get 
>>there (what train lines, connections form the two principal 
>>airports in Paris, etc.) would be welcome. 
>>    
>>
>
>I am sure Olivier will provide this information after the easter
>break and I will assemble this on the meeting web page. 
>
>/js
>
>  
>

--------------090509020405080804080705
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dan &amp; All,<br>
<br>
If you arrive from abroad, you will land in Roissy - Charle De Gaulle
Airport in Paris. <br>
>From there you can take a suburb train (RER-B) that takes you to "Gare
du Nord" Train station (journey ~35 minutes). From "Gare du Nord" you
have to go to the "Gare de l'Est" train station. This takes 3 minutes
by feet, 10 minutes by metro. Gare de l'Est is the train station which
deserves all trains to the east of France. From there, just take a
train to Nancy (2h40 minutes). I'll provide you with maps and other
meeting details on Juergens Web page in 7 days from now (I will travel
again next week).<br>
<br>
If you land in Orly which is unusual except if you come from soemwhere
else in France, things are a bit more complicated (i.e. you have to
cross Paris since Orly is in the south and Gare de L'est in the
North/Est). I'll put the metro data in the web for this.<br>
<br>
Concerning hotel reservations, there is absolutely no problem on july
30 August 1st. If I know the number of participants and the
arrival+departure dates, INRIA can make the reservation&nbsp; for the
participants. Usually hotel rooms are between 45 - 65 Euros / night in
Nancy. I'll provide links as well on the web page next week.<br>
<br>
/Olivier<br>
<br>
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
<blockquote cite="[email-masked]" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:30:23AM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">I plan to attend. Will there be hotel arrangements, or at least 
recommendations for Nancy? Also, some directions about how to get 
there (what train lines, connections form the two principal 
airports in Paris, etc.) would be welcome. 
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I am sure Olivier will provide this information after the easter
break and I will assemble this on the meeting web page. 

/js

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------090509020405080804080705--

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:23:40 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:30:23AM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> I plan to attend. Will there be hotel arrangements, or at least 
> recommendations for Nancy? Also, some directions about how to get 
> there (what train lines, connections form the two principal 
> airports in Paris, etc.) would be welcome. 

I am sure Olivier will provide this information after the easter
break and I will assemble this on the meeting web page. 

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:30:23 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: 

I plan to attend. Will there be hotel arrangements, or at least recommendations for Nancy? Also, some directions about how to get there (what train lines, connections form the two principal airports in Paris, etc.) would be welcome. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Juergen 
> Schoenwaelder
> I received a concrete offer to host the meeting in Nancy 
> (thanks Olivier)
> on the weekend before the IETF, which is about 2.5 hours by 
> train from 
> Paris. The idea would be to meet on Saturday (full day 
> meeting), enjoy 
> a nice evening in Nancy, meet again on Sunday morning and to 
> close early 
> afternoon so that people have time to travel to Paris and 
> still be able 
> to attend the reception or any late afternoon meetings in preparation 
> of the IETF.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
> -- 
>> 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:51:12 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Alan Clark <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Mail-Followup-To: Alan Clark <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:54:35PM -0500, Alan Clark wrote:

> I'll plan to attend the workshop

Great. I will setup a web page and do some agenda planing in the 
coming days and then also announce this event more widely in the 
IRTF/IETF.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

From: "Alan Clark" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:54:35 -0500
Importance: Normal
Cc: 

I'll plan to attend the workshop

Regards

Alan Clark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:50:03PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
> of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also
> a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed
> or how this management should organized).
>
> I see two options for such a meeting:
>
> a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
>    Pro: Lots of people already in one place
>    Con: Busy week with many things going on
>
> b) Independent "interim" meeting soemtimes early June (US East Cost?)
>    Pro: Smaller but perhaps more productive in depth meeting
>    Con: Additional travel for many people involved
>
> I would like to get feedback on these two options. Other proposals
> or even offers to host a VoIP management meeting are also welcome.

Thanks to all who provided feedback. It seems that co-location with
the IETF meeting in Paris in France is the way to go.

I received a concrete offer to host the meeting in Nancy (thanks Olivier)
on the weekend before the IETF, which is about 2.5 hours by train from
Paris. The idea would be to meet on Saturday (full day meeting), enjoy
a nice evening in Nancy, meet again on Sunday morning and to close early
afternoon so that people have time to travel to Paris and still be able
to attend the reception or any late afternoon meetings in preparation
of the IETF.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
--
!! 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: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:42:48 +0100
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Cc: [email-masked]

Sounds good. I'll be there.

Aiko

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I received a concrete offer to host the meeting in Nancy (thanks Olivier)
> on the weekend before the IETF, which is about 2.5 hours by train from 
> Paris. The idea would be to meet on Saturday (full day meeting), enjoy 
> a nice evening in Nancy, meet again on Sunday morning and to close early 
> afternoon so that people have time to travel to Paris and still be able 
> to attend the reception or any late afternoon meetings in preparation 
> of the IETF.
> 
> /js
> 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:43:01 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:50:03PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
> of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also 
> a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed 
> or how this management should organized).
> 
> I see two options for such a meeting:
> 
> a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
>    Pro: Lots of people already in one place
>    Con: Busy week with many things going on
> 
> b) Independent "interim" meeting soemtimes early June (US East Cost?)
>    Pro: Smaller but perhaps more productive in depth meeting
>    Con: Additional travel for many people involved
> 
> I would like to get feedback on these two options. Other proposals 
> or even offers to host a VoIP management meeting are also welcome.

Thanks to all who provided feedback. It seems that co-location with
the IETF meeting in Paris in France is the way to go. 

I received a concrete offer to host the meeting in Nancy (thanks Olivier)
on the weekend before the IETF, which is about 2.5 hours by train from 
Paris. The idea would be to meet on Saturday (full day meeting), enjoy 
a nice evening in Nancy, meet again on Sunday morning and to close early 
afternoon so that people have time to travel to Paris and still be able 
to attend the reception or any late afternoon meetings in preparation 
of the IETF.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] Measuring VoIP quality: methods and tools?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:28:32 +0100
From: "Saverio Niccolini" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>

Hi Aiko and all,
PESQ is based on an active measurement technique.
If you are interested also in passive ones you can have a look at 3SQM.

3SQM stands for "Single Sided Speech Quality Measure"
It is an algorithm, developed for non-intrusive voice quality testing.
It is based on ITU-T recommendation P.563 [May 2004].

Best regards,
Saverio

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Aiko Pras
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nmrg] Measuring VoIP quality: methods and tools?
> 
> Hi
> 
> Who knows or has experience with methods and tools to measure 
> VoIP quality? We know PESQ, but would like to know others.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Aiko
> --
> !! 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.
> 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] Measuring VoIP quality: methods and tools?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:59:31 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Aiko Pras" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: 

Telchemy http://www.telchemy.com/ have an application VQmon largely based upon RTCP-XR (RFC 3611). 

My employer deploys an application largely based upon the RAQMON Internet Drafts which are an extension of the RMON family of applications for QoS monitoring of applications in real-time (VoIP and other). 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Aiko Pras
> Sent: 22 March, 2005 10:44 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nmrg] Measuring VoIP quality: methods and tools?
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Who knows or has experience with methods and tools to measure VoIP 
> quality? We know PESQ, but would like to know others.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Aiko
> -- 
> !! 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, 22 Mar 2005 09:43:44 +0100
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] Measuring VoIP quality: methods and tools?

Hi

Who knows or has experience with methods and tools to measure VoIP 
quality? We know PESQ, but would like to know others.

Bye

Aiko

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:04:23 +0100
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

David B Harrington wrote:
> I doubt I will make the meeting in Paris, but I suggest planning the
> NMRG meeting for the weekend following the IETF meeting rather than
> the weekend before.

I will not be able to be in Paris the weekend after the IETF; I can only 
be there before. Also I assumed that, after a week of IETF, people want 
only 1 thing: go home ;-)

Aiko

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Aiko Pras'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:53:01 -0500
Cc: 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi,

I doubt I will make the meeting in Paris, but I suggest planning the
NMRG meeting for the weekend following the IETF meeting rather than
the weekend before. There are a number of tutorial sessions and other
meetings that occur on the Sunday preceding an IETF meeting, and it is
also common for authors of drafts to get together on Sunday to discuss
strategy, editing sessions, and presentations for sessions to be held
during the week.

David Harrington
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Aiko Pras
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 4:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
> 
> Hi
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management
workshop
> > of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and
also 
> > a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed

> > or how this management should organized).
> > 
> > I see two options for such a meeting:
> > 
> > a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 
> 31-Aug 5, 2005)
> I would be in favour of this option. We could start saterday 
> July 30 and 
> continue on sunday 31 july.
> 
> Aiko
> -- 
> !! 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: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Aiko Pras'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:52:06 +0100
Cc: 

> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
> > of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also 
> > a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed 
> > or how this management should organized).
> > 
> > I see two options for such a meeting:
> > 
> > a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
> I would be in favour of this option. We could start saterday July 30 and 
> continue on sunday 31 july.
> 

I would like to participate,
But the Sunday (before the IETF) I will be busy in IESG/IAB and such sort 
of meetings. SOmetimes we even have those on Saturday.

Bert

> Aiko

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:28:26 +0100
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Cc: 

Hi

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
> of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also 
> a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed 
> or how this management should organized).
> 
> I see two options for such a meeting:
> 
> a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
I would be in favour of this option. We could start saterday July 30 and 
continue on sunday 31 july.

Aiko

From: "Radu State" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:04:31 +0100
Subject: [nmrg] Re: Nmrg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 4

Hi Juergen

I am in favor of Paris as a meeting place, but this choice is natural for
me, given that I can get there in less than 3 hours.
Rs

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:00 PM
Subject: Nmrg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 4

> Send Nmrg mailing list submissions to
> [email-masked]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [email-masked]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [email-masked]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Nmrg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. voip management meeting (Juergen Schoenwaelder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:50:03 +0100
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [nmrg] voip management meeting
> To: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
> of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also
> a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed
> or how this management should organized).
>
> I see two options for such a meeting:
>
> a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
>    Pro: Lots of people already in one place
>    Con: Busy week with many things going on
>
> b) Independent "interim" meeting soemtimes early June (US East Cost?)
>    Pro: Smaller but perhaps more productive in depth meeting
>    Con: Additional travel for many people involved
>
> I would like to get feedback on these two options. Other proposals
> or even offers to host a VoIP management meeting are also welcome.
>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder     International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>     P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
Germany
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> -- 
> !! 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.
>
> End of Nmrg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 4
> **********************************
>

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:50:03 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] voip management meeting
Reply-To: [email-masked]

As discussed before, I like to organize an VoIP management workshop
of the NMRG. There seems to be a fair amount of interests (and also 
a number of different opinions to what extend management is needed 
or how this management should organized).

I see two options for such a meeting:

a) Co-locate the meeting with the IETF in Paris (July 31-Aug 5, 2005)
   Pro: Lots of people already in one place
   Con: Busy week with many things going on

b) Independent "interim" meeting soemtimes early June (US East Cost?)
   Pro: Smaller but perhaps more productive in depth meeting
   Con: Additional travel for many people involved

I would like to get feedback on these two options. Other proposals 
or even offers to host a VoIP management meeting are also welcome.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:36:59 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Mail-Followup-To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: OASIS approves new standards for WSDM]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

This may be of interest for some of you as well. ;-)

/js

----- Forwarded message from "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]> -----

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: OASIS approves new standards for WSDM
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:28:50 +0100
Precedence: bulk

FYI for those who do not normally see such announcements

Bert
---------------------------------------------------------------------

WSDM Approved as OASIS Standard

Both the Web Services Distributed Management (WSDM) - Management Using Web
Services (MUWS) and the WSDM - Management of Web Services (MOWS)
specifications have been voted on and approved as OASIS Standards. The two
WSDM specifications were developed by the OASIS WSDM TC and serve together
to define a method for utilizing Web services to manage distributed
resources. The TC members and co-chairs are to be congratulated on their
work in developing these standards.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200503/msg00003.html

----- End forwarded message -----

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:51:49 -0800
Subject: Re: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

On 3/2/05 10:30 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Did you realize that you are the first to mention SNMP in this discussion? :-)

oops :-) 

> 
> Believe or not most of the people in the management field know that there is
> management beyond SNMP, are very aware of its limitations, and even worked for
> the last few years on solutions different, or complementing SNMP.

yes, and very encouraged about that too.

I'm also aware of what happened in midcom and the fact that although several
companies went and implemented proprietary midcom protocols, the midcom
chair does not know of anyone that is doing an implementation of the midcom
protocol. I'd rather not repeat that experience. 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:30:59 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Did you realize that you are the first to mention SNMP in this discussion? :-)

Believe or not most of the people in the management field know that there is management beyond SNMP, are very aware of its limitations, and even worked for the last few years on solutions different, or complementing SNMP. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----

Do we need to invent a different protocol - probably not depending on what
you define as the scope. But if we asked the questions slightly different,
do we need to invent something other than SNMP, well I think the current
deployment results more or less speak for themselves. I don't know why
people choose not to do SNMP, but it seems like something worth figuring out
and addressing. 

Cullen

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:16:08 -0800
Subject: Re: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

On 3/2/05 3:02 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 
>> I hope to see folks weighing on the debate of xcon vs. xcap
>> since a draft
>> was just submitted on that issue. Lisa D has tried to start
>> discussions on
>> this before and not many people have helped provide input on what IETF
>> should do.
>> 
>> The comparison of XCON to NETCONF or WebDAV leaves me totally
>> confused. XCON
>> is about conferencing.
>> 
> 
> I apologize for not being clear, but that was just one bullet trying to say
> too much. By looking at the requirements described
> http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-cpcp-reqs-04
> .txt I cannot help wondering if inventing a new protocol is really necessary.

No problem - yes I think there are some good points, with this draft in
particular xcon may move to discarding cpcp all together. Still unclear but
discussions are starting and could use the help of a network management
perspective and experience.

> I know discussions are happening, and I believe they are a good start, but
> maybe we need to go further. At the end of the day operators will need to
> manage IP networks, running SIP,  and conferencing, and many other. Do we need
> to invent a different protocol for configuration of each one of the layers and
> applications? 

Do we need to invent a different protocol - probably not depending on what
you define as the scope. But if we asked the questions slightly different,
do we need to invent something other than SNMP, well I think the current
deployment results more or less speak for themselves. I don't know why
people choose not to do SNMP, but it seems like something worth figuring out
and addressing. 

Cullen

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:16:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <[email-masked]>, "'Margaret Wasserman'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Many Jabber clients are like this too. I'd say XMPP but I'm not sure XMPP
standardized all that stuff to make this happen - hope I'm wrong on this.

I have a funny/sad/sick story about the state of SIP device configuration.
At the sipit interop events where we test SIP stuff, we set up a sip phone
at everyone's table so all the teams can phone each other. Something like
140 vendors show up. A few people will spend many many hours the two days
before setting up all these phones - the obvious solution would be just to
tell each team to grab their phones out of the box in the front of the room
and go set it up. Turns out they are too complex to do this and everyone
does it wrong and it is less effort just to set them all up. The engineers
that design and test SIP devices are incapable of following the instructions
to set up a different vendors phones without tons of problems.

Think about it - SIP needs help. Partially this is an issue of people have
not implemented stuff that could help but partially, it's just not clear how
to make it work in a way that people are willing to implement.

Cullen

On 3/2/05 9:29 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Skype has one single provisioning step: Download and pick your name.
> 
> Let the flames come on!
> 
> Thanks, Henry 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:11 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings; Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip
> management
> 
> Cullen,
> 
> Behind the magic that you describe are protocols, scripts and
> pre-provisioning operations that belong in my opinion to 'management'. The
> 'plug-and-play paradigm that you describe is by no means something that is
> specific to VoIP. The same magic will happen on Sunday when we will 'plug'
> our lap-tops in the IETF wireless network. The same magic happened eight
> years ago when my younger son who was nine by that time opened the box and
> installed by himself the first Ethernet switch I brought into our home.
> 
> But yes,  the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired,
> VoIP brings new challenges, expectations are high,  and we expect or already
> encounter problems.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don't believe that voice and data necessarily need separate
>> management protocols. I think VoIP is just an application on an IP
>> network. However, the expectation around management around voice is
>> very high.
>> Do you know
>> that nearly 100% of users can plug in an analog phone to a
>> RJ11 jack and
>> have it work with no calls to tech support. Voice providers can trace
>> back and tel you exactly where problems happened. Now consider the IP
>> network at many companies is largely "managed" by perl scripts that
>> screen scrape IOS commands lines.
>> 
>> My point is 1) the expectation for voice are higher than data is today
>> 2) the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman"
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> Personally, I think that this is a really interesting question...
>>> 
>>> Put another way, does VOIP infrastructure really differ enough from
>>> IP infrastructure that they need their own configuration protocols?
>>> If so, what is different about it that makes network configuration
>>> protocols inadequate?  Could we modify/extend existing network
>>> configuration protocols to make them more useful for VOIP?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voipmanagement
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:45:40 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Flaming on you? never!

I believe that from the point of view of an user the goal is to reach and keep the provisioning as simple as you describe it, while enjoying the level of service and the applications he/she is paying for. 

>From the point of view of the provider the goal is to be able to provide the appropriate configuration, keep the level of service the customer is paying for, and make enough money in the process to keep the business running and profitable. 

Now, I suspect that some protocols and applications that I call 'management' and you may call differently may be involved in this. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: 02 March, 2005 7:29 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'Cullen Jennings'; 'Margaret 
> Wasserman'; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg 
> workshop on voipmanagement
> 
> 
> Skype has one single provisioning step: Download and pick your name.
> 
> Let the flames come on!
> 
> Thanks, Henry 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:11 AM
> To: Cullen Jennings; Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg 
> workshop on voip
> management
> 
> Cullen,
> 
> Behind the magic that you describe are protocols, scripts and
> pre-provisioning operations that belong in my opinion to 
> 'management'. The
> 'plug-and-play paradigm that you describe is by no means 
> something that is
> specific to VoIP. The same magic will happen on Sunday when 
> we will 'plug'
> our lap-tops in the IETF wireless network. The same magic 
> happened eight
> years ago when my younger son who was nine by that time 
> opened the box and
> installed by himself the first Ethernet switch I brought into 
> our home. 
> 
> But yes,  the state of deployed IP management leaves much to 
> be desired,
> VoIP brings new challenges, expectations are high,  and we 
> expect or already
> encounter problems. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I don't believe that voice and data necessarily need separate 
> > management protocols. I think VoIP is just an application on an IP 
> > network. However, the expectation around management around voice is 
> > very high.
> > Do you know
> > that nearly 100% of users can plug in an analog phone to a
> > RJ11 jack and
> > have it work with no calls to tech support. Voice providers 
> can trace 
> > back and tel you exactly where problems happened. Now 
> consider the IP 
> > network at many companies is largely "managed" by perl scripts that 
> > screen scrape IOS commands lines.
> > 
> > My point is 1) the expectation for voice are higher than 
> data is today 
> > 2) the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired.
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" 
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > Personally, I think that this is a really interesting question...
> > > 
> > > Put another way, does VOIP infrastructure really differ 
> enough from 
> > > IP infrastructure that they need their own configuration 
> protocols?
> > > If so, what is different about it that makes network 
> configuration 
> > > protocols inadequate?  Could we modify/extend existing network 
> > > configuration protocols to make them more useful for VOIP?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> !! 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: <[email-masked]>
To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" <[email-masked]>, "'Cullen Jennings'" <[email-masked]>, "'Margaret Wasserman'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:29:10 -0500
Organization: sinnreich.net
Cc: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Skype has one single provisioning step: Download and pick your name.

Let the flames come on!

Thanks, Henry 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 6:11 AM
To: Cullen Jennings; Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip
management

Cullen,

Behind the magic that you describe are protocols, scripts and
pre-provisioning operations that belong in my opinion to 'management'. The
'plug-and-play paradigm that you describe is by no means something that is
specific to VoIP. The same magic will happen on Sunday when we will 'plug'
our lap-tops in the IETF wireless network. The same magic happened eight
years ago when my younger son who was nine by that time opened the box and
installed by himself the first Ethernet switch I brought into our home. 

But yes,  the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired,
VoIP brings new challenges, expectations are high,  and we expect or already
encounter problems. 

Regards,

Dan

> 
> 
> I don't believe that voice and data necessarily need separate 
> management protocols. I think VoIP is just an application on an IP 
> network. However, the expectation around management around voice is 
> very high.
> Do you know
> that nearly 100% of users can plug in an analog phone to a
> RJ11 jack and
> have it work with no calls to tech support. Voice providers can trace 
> back and tel you exactly where problems happened. Now consider the IP 
> network at many companies is largely "managed" by perl scripts that 
> screen scrape IOS commands lines.
> 
> My point is 1) the expectation for voice are higher than data is today 
> 2) the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired.
> 
> 
> On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Personally, I think that this is a really interesting question...
> > 
> > Put another way, does VOIP infrastructure really differ enough from 
> > IP infrastructure that they need their own configuration protocols?
> > If so, what is different about it that makes network configuration 
> > protocols inadequate?  Could we modify/extend existing network 
> > configuration protocols to make them more useful for VOIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:11:07 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

Cullen,

Behind the magic that you describe are protocols, scripts and pre-provisioning operations that belong in my opinion to 'management'. The 'plug-and-play paradigm that you describe is by no means something that is specific to VoIP. The same magic will happen on Sunday when we will 'plug' our lap-tops in the IETF wireless network. The same magic happened eight years ago when my younger son who was nine by that time opened the box and installed by himself the first Ethernet switch I brought into our home. 

But yes,  the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired, VoIP brings new challenges, expectations are high,  and we expect or already encounter problems. 

Regards,

Dan

> 
> 
> I don't believe that voice and data necessarily need separate 
> management
> protocols. I think VoIP is just an application on an IP 
> network. However,
> the expectation around management around voice is very high. 
> Do you know
> that nearly 100% of users can plug in an analog phone to a 
> RJ11 jack and
> have it work with no calls to tech support. Voice providers 
> can trace back
> and tel you exactly where problems happened. Now consider the 
> IP network at
> many companies is largely "managed" by perl scripts that 
> screen scrape IOS
> commands lines. 
> 
> My point is 1) the expectation for voice are higher than data 
> is today 2)
> the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired.
> 
> 
> On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Personally, I think that this is a really interesting question...
> > 
> > Put another way, does VOIP infrastructure really differ enough from
> > IP infrastructure that they need their own configuration protocols?
> > If so, what is different about it that makes network configuration
> > protocols inadequate?  Could we modify/extend existing network
> > configuration protocols to make them more useful for VOIP?
> 
> 
> 
> 

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0200
From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

> 
> I hope to see folks weighing on the debate of xcon vs. xcap 
> since a draft
> was just submitted on that issue. Lisa D has tried to start 
> discussions on
> this before and not many people have helped provide input on what IETF
> should do.
> 
> The comparison of XCON to NETCONF or WebDAV leaves me totally 
> confused. XCON
> is about conferencing.
> 

I apologize for not being clear, but that was just one bullet trying to say too much. By looking at the requirements described  http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-cpcp-reqs-04.txt I cannot help wondering if inventing a new protocol is really necessary. I know discussions are happening, and I believe they are a good start, but maybe we need to go further. At the end of the day operators will need to manage IP networks, running SIP,  and conferencing, and many other. Do we need to invent a different protocol for configuration of each one of the layers and applications? 

> 
> 

Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:25:50 -0800
Subject: Re: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At 2:14 PM +0200 2/21/05, Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\) wrote:
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5180E.DED98ED6"
> 
> Let me stir a little bit more the pot and raise another item that I
> believe is worth being discussed in the projected workshop. Why do
> VoIP WGs, and especially the SIP-related ones need to define
> specialized protocols for each purpose and application rather than
> looking around for using existing protocols and languages? Sometimes
> it looks to me like SIP tries to re-invent every wheel already
> turning in the IETF. Do we really need XCAP and XCON when we have
> NETCONF and WebDAV?
> 
> ... yes, I know this may not be a popular view either :-)
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Dan 

I hope to see folks weighing on the debate of xcon vs. xcap since a draft
was just submitted on that issue. Lisa D has tried to start discussions on
this before and not many people have helped provide input on what IETF
should do.

The comparison of XCON to NETCONF or WebDAV leaves me totally confused. XCON
is about conferencing.

Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:23:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [nmrg] another possible subject for the nmrg workshop on voip management
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

I don't believe that voice and data necessarily need separate management
protocols. I think VoIP is just an application on an IP network. However,
the expectation around management around voice is very high. Do you know
that nearly 100% of users can plug in an analog phone to a RJ11 jack and
have it work with no calls to tech support. Voice providers can trace back
and tel you exactly where problems happened. Now consider the IP network at
many companies is largely "managed" by perl scripts that screen scrape IOS
commands lines. 

My point is 1) the expectation for voice are higher than data is today 2)
the state of deployed IP management leaves much to be desired.

On 2/23/05 4:55 AM, "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Personally, I think that this is a really interesting question...
> 
> Put another way, does VOIP infrastructure really differ enough from
> IP infrastructure that they need their own configuration protocols?
> If so, what is different about it that makes network configuration
> protocols inadequate?  Could we modify/extend existing network
> configuration protocols to make them more useful for VOIP?