From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 02 03:23:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj9BC-0008AJ-Qh; Wed, 02 May 2007 03:23:14 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj9BB-00087Y-SJ for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 03:23:13 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj9B8-00082Q-NC; Wed, 02 May 2007 03:23:10 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([63.240.77.82]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj9B7-0008Qf-4Y; Wed, 02 May 2007 03:23:10 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2007050207230801200347npe>; Wed, 2 May 2007 07:23:08 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 03:22:53 -0400 Message-ID: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AceMikB5L8xyDAJMTem9mf0p1W9DoA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a Cc: syslog@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I propose that an initial set of syslog data models be developed in the OPS Area WG. For those who have not followed the work of the syslog WG, let me explain. The syslog WG in the security area has drawn a number of syslog implementers to work on standardizing the message format for syslog, as an important step toward addressing security issues. The syslog WG is scoped to address "security issues in network event logging", and the work is drawing to a close, as three of the documents in its charter (a message format and UDP and TLS transport mappings) are being delivered for IESG consideration as Proposed Standards, and the other three (a reliable transport mapping, an integrity-checking "signature" mechanism, and a MIB module) are scheduled for WGLC within the next two months. The co-chairs expect that the syslog WG will close by year-end. One of the features of the new message format is structured data elements (SDEs), which provide a mechanism for structuring message content so it is more easily parsed by programs/tools. The SDE format supplements the traditional free-form text content. There are some proposals starting to be published for SDEs and posted to the syslog WG, such as SDEs that map syslog severity to ITU-T perceived severities, following the work done in the ALARM-MIB. The co-chairs believe it would be inappropriate for the "security issues in network event logging" WG to deal with proposals for syslog data modeling. The OPS area would be the likely area to work on data modeling standards for syslog. A few SDEs have been defined by the syslog WG that are used in the syslog message header, but we have not addressed the many SDEs that could be included in syslog content. It would be good to design a set of SDEs that are consistent with other IETF protocol information models and data models, such as MIB-II, IF-MIB, ENTITY-MIB, standard SNMP notification-types, and standard netconf data models, to make it easier for operators to correlate the information in syslog messages with the information contained in SNMP trap and informs and in netconf notifications, and possibly ipfix information elements. The experts in these IETF-based information and data models are found in the OPS area. I propose that an initial set of SDEs be worked on within the OPSAWG. The scope and deliverables of such work should be clearly defined based on the correlation needs of operators, input from network management modeling experts in the OPS area, in cooperation with the syslog implementers from the current syslog WG. If you agree and would be willing to work on developing standardized SDEs for syslog, please email me at ietfdbh@comcast.net. David Harrington dharrington@huawei.com dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 02 11:24:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGgk-00088H-Kg; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:24:18 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGgj-00088B-8e for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:24:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGgi-00087z-VI for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:24:16 -0400 Received: from smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjGgh-0007mu-1z for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:24:16 -0400 Received: (qmail 24929 invoked from network); 2 May 2007 15:24:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andybierman@att.net@75.50.191.242 with plain) by smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 May 2007 15:24:14 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: ifRvQs4VM1ktYWGaGp8TjBpXvMMaq2HXvqnq.e3onLK9dcqqfZGH9y3I5yYKXjuzUw6RAbuAT3RWth8byEvMWVPqYw-- Message-ID: <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:23:38 -0700 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Harrington Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling References: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Cc: syslog@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > I propose that an initial set of syslog data models be developed in > the OPS Area WG. Are you suggesting a set of standard SDEs for particular MIB objects, or the SDE encoding rules for an arbitrary MIB object? Or both? Andy > > For those who have not followed the work of the syslog WG, let me > explain. > > The syslog WG in the security area has drawn a number of syslog > implementers to work on standardizing the message format for syslog, > as an important step toward addressing security issues. The syslog WG > is scoped to address "security issues in network event logging", and > the work is drawing to a close, as three of the documents in its > charter (a message format and UDP and TLS transport mappings) are > being delivered for IESG consideration as Proposed Standards, and the > other three (a reliable transport mapping, an integrity-checking > "signature" mechanism, and a MIB module) are scheduled for WGLC within > the next two months. The co-chairs expect that the syslog WG will > close by year-end. > > One of the features of the new message format is structured data > elements (SDEs), which provide a mechanism for structuring message > content so it is more easily parsed by programs/tools. The SDE format > supplements the traditional free-form text content. There are some > proposals starting to be published for SDEs and posted to the syslog > WG, such as SDEs that map syslog severity to ITU-T perceived > severities, following the work done in the ALARM-MIB. > > The co-chairs believe it would be inappropriate for the "security > issues in network event logging" WG to deal with proposals for syslog > data modeling. The OPS area would be the likely area to work on data > modeling standards for syslog. > > A few SDEs have been defined by the syslog WG that are used in the > syslog message header, but we have not addressed the many SDEs that > could be included in syslog content. It would be good to design a set > of SDEs that are consistent with other IETF protocol information > models and data models, such as MIB-II, IF-MIB, ENTITY-MIB, standard > SNMP notification-types, and standard netconf data models, to make it > easier for operators to correlate the information in syslog messages > with the information contained in SNMP trap and informs and in netconf > notifications, and possibly ipfix information elements. The experts in > these IETF-based information and data models are found in the OPS > area. > > I propose that an initial set of SDEs be worked on within the OPSAWG. > The scope and deliverables of such work should be clearly defined > based on the correlation needs of operators, input from network > management modeling experts in the OPS area, in cooperation with the > syslog implementers from the current syslog WG. > > If you agree and would be willing to work on developing standardized > SDEs for syslog, please email me at ietfdbh@comcast.net. > > > David Harrington > dharrington@huawei.com > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 02 11:47:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjH36-000881-0K; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:47:24 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjH34-00087Z-Rb for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:47:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjH34-00087Q-Ht; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:47:22 -0400 Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjH32-0003RX-84; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:47:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F1576892; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:47:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12983-06; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:47:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A4F765D1; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:46:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 788532427B9; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:46:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:46:46 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Andy Bierman Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling Message-ID: <20070502154646.GA22432@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Andy Bierman , David Harrington , syslog@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org References: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: syslog@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Are you suggesting a set of standard SDEs for particular MIB objects, > or the SDE encoding rules for an arbitrary MIB object? Or both? draft-marinov-syslog-snmp-00.txt suggests a number SDs that can wrap arbitrary SNMP notifications in a syslog message. Note that SNMP notification to syslog translators are widely deployed and our idea was simply to provide a lossless common way for doing this. /js PS: Do we really have to do this cross-posting thing? Can we host this discussion in a single place? -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 02 11:57:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjHCp-00013b-Rg; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:57:27 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjHCo-00010K-Lu for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:57:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjHCo-0000zg-CE; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:57:26 -0400 Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org ([192.80.55.71] helo=smtp-mclean.mitre.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjHCm-0005SC-Vh; Wed, 02 May 2007 11:57:26 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id l42Fq08l028328; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:52:00 -0400 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6DE4F8D9; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG (imcfe1.mitre.org [129.83.29.3]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l42FpxcG028272; Wed, 2 May 2007 11:51:59 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 May 2007 11:57:23 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:57:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F01C9BAE5@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> In-Reply-To: <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling Thread-Index: AceMzfhLMLQNkh2ATTmk5PE9DdhbSAAAKWYg References: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> From: "Natale, Bob" To: "David Harrington" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2007 15:57:23.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[92F159E0:01C78CD2] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 Cc: syslog@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dave, The same question that Andy asks below occurred to me when I read your note...since I have not followed the "Security Issues in Syslog" WG for some time, I checked the WG charter page and the additional info at http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/index.shtml ...and came away a bit confused about the MIB work being done there ...this confusion is still based on flimsy research, so I won't whine about a smack on the wrist if warranted. :) However, the charter calls for a Syslog Device MIB...the current version of the I-D appears to be at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-15.txt ...but that MIB seems to be about control and monitoring of Syslog applications (nothing wrong with that!...quite the contrary) ...notes indicate that the change was made at -11 (the descriptive text on the "Additional Info" page should be updated accordingly) ...changes "process" and "device" to "entity" =3D=3D "application"...fine. But what IETF MIB refers to Syslog messages themselves...along the lines of, for example, the CISCO-SYSLOG-MIB...? Cheers, BobN -----Original Message----- From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:24 AM To: David Harrington Cc: syslog@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling David Harrington wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I propose that an initial set of syslog data models be developed in > the OPS Area WG. Are you suggesting a set of standard SDEs for particular MIB objects, or the SDE encoding rules for an arbitrary MIB object? Or both? Andy >=20 > For those who have not followed the work of the syslog WG, let me > explain. >=20 > The syslog WG in the security area has drawn a number of syslog > implementers to work on standardizing the message format for syslog, > as an important step toward addressing security issues. The syslog WG > is scoped to address "security issues in network event logging", and > the work is drawing to a close, as three of the documents in its > charter (a message format and UDP and TLS transport mappings) are > being delivered for IESG consideration as Proposed Standards, and the > other three (a reliable transport mapping, an integrity-checking > "signature" mechanism, and a MIB module) are scheduled for WGLC within > the next two months. The co-chairs expect that the syslog WG will > close by year-end. >=20 > One of the features of the new message format is structured data > elements (SDEs), which provide a mechanism for structuring message > content so it is more easily parsed by programs/tools. The SDE format > supplements the traditional free-form text content. There are some > proposals starting to be published for SDEs and posted to the syslog > WG, such as SDEs that map syslog severity to ITU-T perceived > severities, following the work done in the ALARM-MIB.=20 >=20 > The co-chairs believe it would be inappropriate for the "security > issues in network event logging" WG to deal with proposals for syslog > data modeling. The OPS area would be the likely area to work on data > modeling standards for syslog.=20 >=20 > A few SDEs have been defined by the syslog WG that are used in the > syslog message header, but we have not addressed the many SDEs that > could be included in syslog content. It would be good to design a set > of SDEs that are consistent with other IETF protocol information > models and data models, such as MIB-II, IF-MIB, ENTITY-MIB, standard > SNMP notification-types, and standard netconf data models, to make it > easier for operators to correlate the information in syslog messages > with the information contained in SNMP trap and informs and in netconf > notifications, and possibly ipfix information elements. The experts in > these IETF-based information and data models are found in the OPS > area.=20 >=20 > I propose that an initial set of SDEs be worked on within the OPSAWG. > The scope and deliverables of such work should be clearly defined > based on the correlation needs of operators, input from network > management modeling experts in the OPS area, in cooperation with the > syslog implementers from the current syslog WG.=20 >=20 > If you agree and would be willing to work on developing standardized > SDEs for syslog, please email me at ietfdbh@comcast.net. >=20 >=20 > David Harrington > dharrington@huawei.com=20 > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 02 13:45:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIt1-0004BC-6f; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:45:07 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIsz-0004Ay-SV for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIsz-00049U-ID; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net ([63.240.77.83]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIsy-0002Oe-BE; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:45:05 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <20070502174503013003h3epe>; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:45:03 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: , "'Andy Bierman'" References: <06ae01c78c8a$b2cddd80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4638ACFA.8010303@andybierman.com> <20070502154646.GA22432@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:44:46 -0400 Message-ID: <06ea01c78ce1$93753210$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20070502154646.GA22432@elstar.local> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: AceM0Srzi9UPzll2SGimT6PfrDAGuwAD6Z+Q X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: syslog@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org My proposal was to do this work in the OPS area, and I recommend discussing this on the OPS area mailing list, rather than cross-posting. After this message, I plan to drop the syslog WG from the To: and CC: fields. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:47 AM > To: Andy Bierman > Cc: David Harrington; syslog@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] syslog data modeling > > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Are you suggesting a set of standard SDEs for particular > MIB objects, > > or the SDE encoding rules for an arbitrary MIB object? Or both? > > draft-marinov-syslog-snmp-00.txt suggests a number SDs that can wrap > arbitrary SNMP notifications in a syslog message. Note that SNMP > notification to syslog translators are widely deployed and our idea > was simply to provide a lossless common way for doing this. > > /js > > PS: Do we really have to do this cross-posting thing? Can we host this > discussion in a single place? > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 03 21:09:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjmIl-0002z5-O9; Thu, 03 May 2007 21:09:39 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HjmIk-0002yV-Sg for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 03 May 2007 21:09:38 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjmIg-0002y1-Of; Thu, 03 May 2007 21:09:34 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjmIg-0007r2-Gg; Thu, 03 May 2007 21:09:34 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2007 21:09:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,487,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="11436011:sNHT8454522" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 04:09:32 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for May 10, 2007 Telechat Thread-Index: AceNxhkFnlIhUAE4RK2ULMIayPRFYgAImq6Q From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , , "Aaa-Doctors \(E-mail\)" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c Cc: Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for May 10, 2007 Telechat X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Please find below the preliminary agenda for the 5/10 IESG telechat. Please let me know if there are any issues or problems until Wednesday 5/9 COB the latest Thanks and Regards, Dan =20 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Item o draft-ietf-inch-iodef-12.txt The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (Proposed Standard) - 1 of=20 7=20 Token: Sam Hartman o draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-22.txt OpenPGP Message Format (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 7=20 Token: Sam Hartman o draft-ietf-avt-ulp-21.txt RTP Payload Format for Generic Forward Error Correction (Proposed Standard)=20 - 3 of 7=20 Note: Colin is Shepherd.=20 Token: Cullen Jennings o draft-ietf-enum-im-service-02.txt A Telephone Number Mapping (ENUM) Service Registration for Instant=20 Messaging (IM) Services (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 7=20 Token: Jon Peterson o draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-12.txt Sieve: An Email Filtering Language (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 7=20 Token: Lisa Dusseault o draft-ietf-smime-escertid-06.txt ESS Update: Adding CertID Algorithm Agility (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 7=20 Token: Tim Polk o draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-08.txt ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching (Proposed Standard) - 7=20 of 7=20 Token: Ross Callon 2.1.2 Returning Item NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item o draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-09.txt Feed Paging and Archiving (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 3=20 Token: Lisa Dusseault o draft-zeilenga-ldap-entrydn-02.txt The LDAP entryDN Operational Attribute (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 3=20 Token: Chris Newman o draft-crocker-rfc4234bis-00.txt Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF (Standard) - 3 of 3=20 Token: Lisa Dusseault 2.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.1.1 New Item o draft-ietf-enum-infrastructure-enum-reqs-03.txt Infrastrucure ENUM Requirements (Informational) - 1 of 1=20 Token: Jon Peterson 3.1.2 Returning Item NONE 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.2.1 New Item o draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-01.txt A Uniform Resource Name Namespace For The GSM Association (GSMA) and the=20 International Mobile station Equipment Identity(IMEI) (Experimental) - 1 of=20 1=20 Token: Lisa Dusseault 3.2.2 Returning Item o draft-kunze-rfc2413bis-07.txt The Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (Informational) - 1 of 1=20 Token: Lisa Dusseault 3.3 Independent Submissions Via RFC Editor The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. =20 =20 Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item NONE 3.3.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3.3 For Action o draft-friend-oftp2-04.txt ODETTE File Transfer Protocol 2.0 (Informational) - 1 of 1=20 Token: Russ Housley _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed May 09 06:33:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HljTp-0001FW-IP; Wed, 09 May 2007 06:33:09 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HljTo-0001FQ-9G for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 06:33:08 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HljTl-0001F9-0z for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 06:33:05 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HljTj-0002X0-Pd for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 06:33:04 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2007 06:33:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,508,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14429057:sNHT6717576" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:32:21 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OPS Area Open Hours - change of date for the next session Thread-Index: AceSJVNEDPSFt7FiRli2cIaT9ontfg== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPS Area Open Hours - change of date for the next session X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Please note that there is a change of date in the next session of OPS Area Open Hours. The next session was re-scheduled for Thursday 5/10 instead of the Tuesday 5/15 slot time. The 12:30PM PT / 3:30PM ET time slot is available, so if you want to talk with the Area Directors on any subject related to the OPS Area business please let Ron and/or me know.=20 Dan =20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 07:36:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm6wO-0005Vx-E5; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:36:12 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm6wM-0005Uf-Rh for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:36:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm6wJ-0005UW-Ur for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:36:07 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hm6wI-0006jz-M7 for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 07:36:07 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2007 07:36:06 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,517,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14098761:sNHT10933020" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:35:49 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RFC 4858 on Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call toPublication Thread-Index: AceSjZl5T0CFbcyYTri6hRwCKvNMQwAabz4A From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: RFC 4858 on Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call toPublication X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:55 AM To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 4858 on Document Shepherding from Working Group Last Call toPublication A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 4858 Title: Document Shepherding from Working Group=20 Last Call to Publication=20 Author: H. Levkowetz, D. Meyer, L. Eggert, A. Mankin Status: Informational Date: May 2007 Mailbox: henrik@levkowetz.com,=20 dmm@1-4-5.net,=20 lars.eggert@nokia.com, mankin@psg.com Pages: 21 Characters: 48572 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-09.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.txt This document describes methodologies that have been designed to improve and facilitate IETF document flow processing. It specifies a set of procedures under which a working group chair or secretary serves as the primary Document Shepherd for a document that has been submitted to the IESG for publication. Before this, the Area Director responsible for the working group has traditionally filled the shepherding role. This memo provides information for the Internet community. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.=20 It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body=20 help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 14:57:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDp9-00056F-GV; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:57:11 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDWS-0001HR-4a for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDWR-0001H8-HR; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:51 -0400 Received: from kremlin.juniper.net ([207.17.137.120] helo=smtpa.juniper.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDWR-0004of-8C; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:51 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO proton.jnpr.net) ([10.10.2.37]) by smtpa.juniper.net with ESMTP; 10 May 2007 11:37:51 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,518,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="1490037:sNHT33980736" Received: from [172.23.1.86] ([172.23.1.86] RDNS failed) by proton.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:49 -0400 Message-ID: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:43 -0400 From: Ron Bonica User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ops-area@ietf.org, ops-nm@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2007 18:37:49.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FBCF560:01C79332] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:57:10 -0400 Cc: Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPS Area WG X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Folks, Dan and I would like to propose an area-wide working group whose charter is reflected below. Please read and comment upon the proposed charter. Dan and Ron ============================================================= Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) Chair(s): TBD TBD Area Directors: Dan Romascanu Ronald Bonica The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group or do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF. The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work items, when they arise. The working group meets if there are active proposals that require discussion. The working group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current work items and their associated milestones. All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval with the IESG. The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the behavior or WGs in the O&M area (e.g., manageability requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have already concluded (e.g. advancement of documents on the standards track, application statements, extensions of MIB modules). The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers. It is not within the scope of the OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts of a WG charter items that could not come to convergence on what they were chartered to do. The currently active OPSAWG work items mostly fall under the following topics: (A) Development of a BCP document that will provide guidelines for operational and manageability requirements that need to be covered in IETF documents, especially those documents that include requirements and specification of new protocols or protocol extensions. (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents (C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB modules which were developped in working groups that have concluded. Goals and Milestones: June 2007 - Initial submission for the Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic Management Data Models October 2007 - Initial submission for the Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog December 2007 - WGLC for the Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft February 2008 - Submit the Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration as BCP April 2008 - WGLC for the Template for Generic Management Data Models April 2008 - WGLC for the Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog June 2008 - Submit the Template for Generic Management Data Models to the IESG for consideration as BCP June 2008 - Submit the Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog to the IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:00:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDsn-0007PM-HN; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:00:57 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDqO-0006nJ-PY for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:58:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDqO-0006mb-51; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:58:28 -0400 Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDqL-0006RA-RV; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:58:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050C178D22; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32408-05; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5F47A992; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9D9D3251A98; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:20 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ron Bonica Message-ID: <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:00:56 -0400 Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ops-area@ietf.org List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:37:43PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote: > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic > Management Data Models What is this? And is there consensus that this is a WG work item? /js PS: And can we avoid the cross posting? ;-) -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:02:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDu3-0008R8-E1; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:02:15 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDu2-0008Qj-8j for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:02:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDu1-0008QQ-Kr; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:02:13 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDtz-00077F-AH; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:02:13 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2007 15:02:10 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,518,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14310763:sNHT7966698" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:02:09 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Thread-Index: AceTMoBK450xlhzPR+mXSR7Z0W5mdQAAv6rQ References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Ron Bonica" , , X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1676547e4f33b5e63227e9c02bd359e3 Cc: Subject: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org One more thing - please send feedback until May 17 the latest as we want to put the charter for approval on the agenda of the may 24 IESG telechat.=20 Dan and Ron =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:38 PM > To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG >=20 > Folks, >=20 > Dan and I would like to propose an area-wide working group=20 > whose charter is reflected below. Please read and comment=20 > upon the proposed charter. >=20 > Dan and Ron >=20 > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) >=20 > Chair(s): >=20 > TBD > TBD >=20 > Area Directors: >=20 > Dan Romascanu > Ronald Bonica >=20 >=20 > The Operations and Management Area receives occasional=20 > proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing=20 > with operational and management topics that are not in scope=20 > of an existing working group or do not justify the formation=20 > of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum=20 > for developing such work items in the IETF. >=20 > The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such=20 > work items, when they arise. The working group meets if there=20 > are active proposals that require discussion. The working=20 > group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current=20 > work items and their associated milestones. All new work=20 > items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval=20 > with the IESG. >=20 > The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the=20 > behavior or WGs in the O&M area (e.g., manageability > requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that=20 > don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have=20 > already concluded (e.g. > advancement of documents on the standards track, application=20 > statements, extensions of MIB modules). >=20 > The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to=20 > have at least a reasonable level of interest from the=20 > operators and users community and have a committed number of=20 > editors and reviewers. It is not within the scope of the=20 > OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts of a WG charter=20 > items that could not come to convergence on what they were=20 > chartered to do. >=20 > The currently active OPSAWG work items mostly fall under the following > topics: >=20 > (A) Development of a BCP document that will provide=20 > guidelines for operational and manageability requirements=20 > that need to be covered in IETF documents, especially those=20 > documents that include requirements and specification of new=20 > protocols or protocol extensions. >=20 > (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents >=20 > (C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB=20 > modules which were developped in working groups that have concluded. >=20 > Goals and Milestones: >=20 > June 2007 - Initial submission for the Guidelines for=20 > Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft >=20 > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for=20 > Generic Management Data Models >=20 > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog >=20 > December 2007 - WGLC for the Guidelines for Considering=20 > Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft >=20 > February 2008 - Submit the Guidelines for Considering=20 > Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft to=20 > the IESG for consideration as BCP >=20 > April 2008 - WGLC for the Template for Generic Management Data Models >=20 > April 2008 - WGLC for the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog >=20 > June 2008 - Submit the Template for Generic Management Data=20 > Models to the IESG for consideration as BCP >=20 > June 2008 - Submit the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog to the IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-NM mailing list > OPS-NM@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:06:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDy5-0003Tm-Vi; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:25 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDy4-0003Th-Pb for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDy4-0003TZ-G2 for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:24 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDy3-0007f2-A5 for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:06:24 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,518,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14311994:sNHT7645752" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:06:01 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Thread-Index: AceTNbR+eQi89HYuTwGtKWUuJEwScQAABiPA References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , "Ron Bonica" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder=20 > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]=20 > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:58 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG >=20 > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:37:43PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote: > =20 > > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic=20 > > Management Data Models >=20 > What is this?=20 See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago. >And is there consensus that this is a WG work item? This is what we try to determine. =20 >=20 > /js >=20 > PS: And can we avoid the cross posting? ;-) We can try. I took out ops-nm from the distribution list.=20 Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:16:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmE7R-0001tk-Jz; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:16:05 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmE7Q-0001tf-JJ for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:16:04 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmE7Q-0001tX-9r for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:16:04 -0400 Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmE7P-0000Ri-0O for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:16:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B877AF49; Thu, 10 May 2007 21:16:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01498-08; Thu, 10 May 2007 21:15:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A867AE01; Thu, 10 May 2007 21:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 05A1B251C68; Thu, 10 May 2007 21:15:57 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:15:57 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Message-ID: <20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: Ron Bonica , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:06:01PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic > > > Management Data Models > > > > What is this? > > See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago. Can we be a bit more concrete? Do you mean "A Template for Documents Containing a MIB Module" ? But this does not have "Generic" in its title - so I suppose this is something else. Is there an ID to look at? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:22:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEDe-0003r5-BX; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:30 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEDd-0003nw-9H for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEDc-0003nA-Vc for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:28 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc12.comcast.net ([206.18.177.52]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEDb-0001It-MH for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:28 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc12) with SMTP id <20070510192227b1200faq1ae>; Thu, 10 May 2007 19:22:27 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:21 -0400 Message-ID: <03dc01c79338$88796fe0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-index: AceTNYqGcyAyv9tXQmCf9ShO+shkfgAADQow X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I proposed this item. It would be a generic version of the MIB Doctor sponsored template that I have been (occasionally) working on. It would simply provide some guidance to editors to provide consistency to the surrounding text for data models to include sections on 1) an overview of the purpose of the dat amodel 2) the organization/structure of the data model 3) how the data model relates to other data models 4) some boilerplate for security and IANA considerations 5) possibly some boilerplate for operational considerations I expect the template would be availabl ein an xml2rfc-compatible format, as well as in a text format. Of course, it be a WG decision whether to do this, and what it should look like. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:58 PM > To: Ron Bonica > Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:37:43PM -0400, Ron Bonica wrote: > > > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic > > Management Data Models > > What is this? And is there consensus that this is a WG work item? > > /js > > PS: And can we avoid the cross posting? ;-) > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:23:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEEK-0003ye-JO; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:12 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEEJ-0003xz-8I for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEEI-0003xo-Uv for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:10 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEEH-0001NJ-N9 for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:23:10 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2007 15:23:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,519,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14317241:sNHT7014918" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:22:31 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Thread-Index: AceTN8YQ5mq/OpO5QhWEenL22BnzFwAAGiuw References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> <20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: Ron Bonica , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder=20 > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]=20 > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:16 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: ops-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG >=20 > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:06:01PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > =20 > > > > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic=20 > > > > Management Data Models > > >=20 > > > What is this?=20 > >=20 > > See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago. >=20 > Can we be a bit more concrete? Do you mean "A Template for=20 > Documents Containing a MIB Module"=20 > ? > But this does not have "Generic" in its title - so I suppose=20 > this is something else. Is there an ID to look at? >=20 > /js=20 >=20 David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html. There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know.=20 Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 15:38:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmESc-0006Ta-LW; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:58 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmESb-0006TV-0K for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:57 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmESa-0006TN-N0 for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.225.92]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmESa-0004Ss-EJ for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc12) with SMTP id <20070510193754b1200f9d39e>; Thu, 10 May 2007 19:37:55 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net><20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local><20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:48 -0400 Message-ID: <03dd01c7933a$b187ed10$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-index: AceTN8YQ5mq/OpO5QhWEenL22BnzFwAAGiuwAABMgUA= X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 Cc: 'Ron Bonica' , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The existing MIB-specific draft could probably be converted fairly easily as a starting point. The WG could then adapt it to provide a template suitable for multiple types of data models. The MIB Template is based on MIB Doctor input and guidelines from RFC4181. I expect a generic template might contain more suggestions from the guidelines for operability and manageability document that is the first item in the charter. Such a template would hopefully be helpful to editors that are not experts in OPS network management, to help them make sure certain aspects of operability and management are considered when developing data models (or information models) related to their protocols. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:23 PM > To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de > Cc: Ron Bonica; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:16 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: ops-area@ietf.org; Ron Bonica > > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:06:01PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan > (Dan) wrote: > > > > > > > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template > for Generic > > > > > Management Data Models > > > > > > > > What is this? > > > > > > See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago. > > > > Can we be a bit more concrete? Do you mean "A Template for > > Documents Containing a MIB Module" > > ? > > But this does not have "Generic" in its title - so I suppose > > this is something else. Is there an ID to look at? > > > > /js > > > > David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html. > There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. > > Dan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 16:05:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEsj-0005DS-TA; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:04:57 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEsi-0005DM-TK for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:04:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEsi-0005DE-Jr for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:04:56 -0400 Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmEsh-0001Wp-8u for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:04:56 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 675B75AD3D; Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06768-07; Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842CD7AE0A; Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 83931251F8A; Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:49 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Message-ID: <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> <20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: Ron Bonica , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:22:31PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html. > There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. Looks like a "nice to have" activity to me; but this does not seem to be a pressing thing to get done. BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the ops-area scope? This document establishes an IANA registry for SnmpEngineID formats and allocates a well known localEngineID that can be used in case an agent's engineID is not known and there is no proxy involved. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 16:24:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmFBa-00016Z-4o; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:26 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmFBZ-00016P-1K for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:25 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmFBY-00016H-Ny for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:24 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc14.comcast.net ([206.18.177.54]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmFBU-0003mg-KY for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:24 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc14) with SMTP id <20070510202419b14008ac7he>; Thu, 10 May 2007 20:24:20 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: , "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net><20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local><20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:13 -0400 Message-ID: <042f01c79341$2d580910$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-index: AceTPn5TWiErSMoESAeGqKeB9TSRLAAAmOKQ X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: 'Ron Bonica' , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I agree this is not pressing. I have been slow to finish the MIB template for the same reason; other things are more important. However, having such a template could help WGs produce more consistent, and hopefully better quality, documents. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:05 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Ron Bonica; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:22:31PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html. > > There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. > > Looks like a "nice to have" activity to me; but this does not seem to > be a pressing thing to get done. > > BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the ops-area > scope? This document establishes an IANA registry for SnmpEngineID > formats and allocates a well known localEngineID that can be used in > case an agent's engineID is not known and there is no proxy involved. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 10 18:50:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmHSd-00035P-MK; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:50:11 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmHSd-00035K-42 for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:50:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmHSc-00035B-Ql for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:50:10 -0400 Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.207]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmHSa-0005L9-Aa for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 18:50:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 62821 invoked from network); 10 May 2007 22:50:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andybierman@att.net@75.50.177.98 with plain) by smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2007 22:50:07 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: SBib9uIVM1mX5eO4Vl9pj_A.oeOMl5gCCRTPyzBBzMiCndPdoDU96yhIFqfZb.dVNBLmjWcr_pFYbd.KCXuOplamPA-- Message-ID: <4643A177.60206@andybierman.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:49:27 -0700 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Harrington Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net><20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local><20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> <042f01c79341$2d580910$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <042f01c79341$2d580910$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 Cc: ops-area@ietf.org, 'Ron Bonica' X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > I agree this is not pressing. I have been slow to finish the MIB > template for the same reason; other things are more important. > However, having such a template could help WGs produce more > consistent, and hopefully better quality, documents. > This WG seems like a good idea to me, except I would think of it as a "review process" WG for small items. Priority isn't as important as agreement that it is useful and people are willing to work on it (whatever 'it' is). I see this more as a project review board than a WG. IMO, dedicated authors and reviewers need to be lined up in advance for a WG like this, as part of any mini-project getting the green light to start. People (like me) who may want to comment on some of the drafts will subscribe to the WG mailing list, and pay closer attention during WGLCs (as usual ;-). I want the template work to get done. I am willing to review it (but not work on writing it). > dbh Andy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:05 PM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> Cc: Ron Bonica; ops-area@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:22:31PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > wrote: >> >>> David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message >>> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html. >>> There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. >> Looks like a "nice to have" activity to me; but this does not seem > to >> be a pressing thing to get done. >> >> BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the ops-area >> scope? This document establishes an IANA registry for SnmpEngineID >> formats and allocates a well known localEngineID that can be used in >> case an agent's engineID is not known and there is no proxy > involved. >> /js >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPS-AREA mailing list >> OPS-AREA@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 11 10:35:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmWDG-0006OC-CM; Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:18 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmWDF-0006O6-FV for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmWDF-0006Ny-5z for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:17 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmWDD-0008MM-VF for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:17 -0400 Received: from 51.105.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2007 10:35:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,523,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="14603480:sNHT7210602" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:34:57 +0300 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Thread-Index: AceTPn15mAJJCOU1RS2UgpnaVViD1AAmmQ3w References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> <20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: Ron Bonica , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org I believe that it would. However, if we are in charter wording mode in order to better accommodate it we should change: s/(C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB modules which were developped in working groups that have concluded./(C) Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents which were developped in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules). Should we include the document in the milestones list?=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder=20 > BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the=20 > ops-area scope? This document establishes an IANA registry=20 > for SnmpEngineID formats and allocates a well known=20 > localEngineID that can be used in case an agent's engineID is=20 > not known and there is no proxy involved. >=20 > /js >=20 > --=20 > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 11 12:20:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmXqh-0005iE-3H; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:20:07 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmXqg-0005i6-7l for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:20:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmXqf-0005hw-UX for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:20:05 -0400 Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmXqe-0002Aj-3z for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 12:20:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D474695A8; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hermes.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.iu-bremen.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01009-10; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:19:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1DC6D9C0; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:19:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6554A25311A; Fri, 11 May 2007 18:19:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:19:56 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Message-ID: <20070511161956.GA19915@elstar.local> References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> <20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local> <20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local> <20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at iu-bremen.de X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: Ron Bonica , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:34:57PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > I believe that it would. However, if we are in charter wording mode in > order to better accommodate it we should change: > > s/(C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB modules > which were developped in working groups that have concluded./(C) > Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents which were > developped in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules). I requested a similar change in the past (but it got lost somewhere). > Should we include the document in the milestones list? Ask the WG to be. I can create a WG -00 anytime soon (before the next IETF) and I believe the WG -00 version will be close to be ready for WG last call. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 11 15:34:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmasG-00080d-FK; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:56 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HmasE-00080S-QB for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmasE-00080K-Gj for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:54 -0400 Received: from alnrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.225.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmasB-0007fn-3y for ops-area@ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:54 -0400 Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-128-104-207.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.128.104.207]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc13) with SMTP id <20070511193350b1300dp00me>; Fri, 11 May 2007 19:33:50 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: , "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net><20070510185820.GB18383@elstar.local><20070510191557.GA18500@elstar.local><20070510200449.GH18500@elstar.local> <20070511161956.GA19915@elstar.local> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:43 -0400 Message-ID: <047901c79403$49ae2230$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-reply-to: <20070511161956.GA19915@elstar.local> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-index: AceT6D5Ios0ZnxUoRu2ZGVVNjSqHdgAF9NyA X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Cc: 'Ron Bonica' , ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, For SNMP to work following the RFC3411 approach, the dispatcher needs to forward messages to specific applications based partly on the contextEngineID. Juergen's proposal makes contextEngineID discovery an application within the SNMP architecture, which is where contextEngineID discovery belongs. His proposal allows his discovery messages to be passed to the application layer by having a well-known engineID that the dispatcher can use to forward the message to a discovery application. USM needs to do a security-model-specific discovery of the securityEngineID, and that has simply been assumed to also be the contextEngineID, but that is not always a good assumption. I believe Juergen's proposal is a very good approach that is security-model independent. I believe it will permit contextEngineID discovery for environments using SNMPv1/v2c/v3 messages, and using ISMS TSM, USM, or SNMPv1/v2c security models. I also believe it could be used by other NM protocols, like netconf, either by getting the MIB object or its semantic equivalent. The benefit of doing this would be some correlation of co-resident snmp agents and netconf servers and which can be used to correlate previously retrieved data and newly retrieved data in way that works even if the address changes as a result of NAT or DHCP. (i.e., the historical data gathered by an NMS is not obsoleted by an address change at the managed device interface.) I strongly support the work proposed by Juergen, and think we should start from his draft. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:20 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Ron Bonica; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG > > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:34:57PM +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > I believe that it would. However, if we are in charter > wording mode in > > order to better accommodate it we should change: > > > > s/(C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define > MIB modules > > which were developped in working groups that have concluded./(C) > > Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents which were > > developped in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules). > > I requested a similar change in the past (but it got lost somewhere). > > > Should we include the document in the milestones list? > > Ask the WG to be. I can create a WG -00 anytime soon (before the next > IETF) and I believe the WG -00 version will be close to be ready for > WG last call. ;-) > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 15 09:40:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnxG1-0006jC-MA; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:05 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HnxG1-0006j4-Aw for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnxFx-0006id-I8; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:01 -0400 Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnxFx-0004Zi-2i; Tue, 15 May 2007 09:40:01 -0400 Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 May 2007 15:39:47 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:39:53 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG Thread-Index: AceTMoBK450xlhzPR+mXSR7Z0W5mdQAAv6rQAO82sXA= References: <46436677.1070309@juniper.net> From: "STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" , "Ron Bonica" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2007 13:39:47.0175 (UTC) FILETIME=[80E1C770:01C796F6] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 789c141a303c09204b537a4078e2a63f Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Dear Dan and Ron, OPSAWG charter includes: > (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents I enhanced XSL part of draft-stephan-ops-xml-mib-module-template. The = last version transforms a RFC2629-based XML MIB draft in a XML schema = directly under Mozilla. I think it's a good starting point for working on an update of RFC2629 = leading to a common document format for specifying datamodels. Regards Emile -----Message d'origine----- De=A0: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]=20 Envoy=E9=A0: jeudi 10 mai 2007 21:02 =C0=A0: Ron Bonica; ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org Objet=A0: [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG One more thing - please send feedback until May 17 the latest as we want to put the charter for approval on the agenda of the may 24 IESG telechat.=20 Dan and Ron =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:38 PM > To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG >=20 > Folks, >=20 > Dan and I would like to propose an area-wide working group=20 > whose charter is reflected below. Please read and comment=20 > upon the proposed charter. >=20 > Dan and Ron >=20 > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) >=20 > Chair(s): >=20 > TBD > TBD >=20 > Area Directors: >=20 > Dan Romascanu > Ronald Bonica >=20 >=20 > The Operations and Management Area receives occasional=20 > proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing=20 > with operational and management topics that are not in scope=20 > of an existing working group or do not justify the formation=20 > of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum=20 > for developing such work items in the IETF. >=20 > The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such=20 > work items, when they arise. The working group meets if there=20 > are active proposals that require discussion. The working=20 > group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current=20 > work items and their associated milestones. All new work=20 > items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval=20 > with the IESG. >=20 > The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the=20 > behavior or WGs in the O&M area (e.g., manageability > requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that=20 > don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have=20 > already concluded (e.g. > advancement of documents on the standards track, application=20 > statements, extensions of MIB modules). >=20 > The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to=20 > have at least a reasonable level of interest from the=20 > operators and users community and have a committed number of=20 > editors and reviewers. It is not within the scope of the=20 > OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts of a WG charter=20 > items that could not come to convergence on what they were=20 > chartered to do. >=20 > The currently active OPSAWG work items mostly fall under the following > topics: >=20 > (A) Development of a BCP document that will provide=20 > guidelines for operational and manageability requirements=20 > that need to be covered in IETF documents, especially those=20 > documents that include requirements and specification of new=20 > protocols or protocol extensions. >=20 > (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents >=20 > (C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB=20 > modules which were developped in working groups that have concluded. >=20 > Goals and Milestones: >=20 > June 2007 - Initial submission for the Guidelines for=20 > Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft >=20 > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for=20 > Generic Management Data Models >=20 > October 2007 - Initial submission for the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog >=20 > December 2007 - WGLC for the Guidelines for Considering=20 > Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft >=20 > February 2008 - Submit the Guidelines for Considering=20 > Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft to=20 > the IESG for consideration as BCP >=20 > April 2008 - WGLC for the Template for Generic Management Data Models >=20 > April 2008 - WGLC for the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog >=20 > June 2008 - Submit the Template for Generic Management Data=20 > Models to the IESG for consideration as BCP >=20 > June 2008 - Submit the Structured Data Elements > (SDEs) for syslog to the IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-NM mailing list > OPS-NM@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 21 02:45:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq1ds-0001Ky-Bk; Mon, 21 May 2007 02:45:16 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq1dr-0001Kb-2W for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 02:45:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq1dm-0001KG-VP for ops-area@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 02:45:10 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq1dm-0006gd-MN for ops-area@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 02:45:10 -0400 Received: from 12.140.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 May 2007 02:45:10 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,559,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="18678045:sNHT8571432" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 08:45:06 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Two BOF proposals for the Chicago IETF Thread-Index: Acebc5FmFdAIEWAHSpmZLwdh0TPFsw== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Subject: [OPS-AREA] Two BOF proposals for the Chicago IETF X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Today is the deadline for submitting preliminary requests for BOF sessions at the Chicago IETF. Up to now we received two such proposals, which are listed at http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki XSD for accessing SMIv2 data models (xsdmi) BOF=20 Status: request submitted including proposed WG charter=20 Discussions: NETCONF WG list netconf@ops.ietf.org=20 Responsible AD: Dan Romascanu=20 BOF Chair: David Harrington (ietfdbh@comcast.net)=20 Internet-Drafts:=20 draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-02 (XSD for SMIv2 Data Types and Textual Conventions)=20 draft-li-ngo-access-mib-01 (SMIv2 Data Access for NETCONF)=20 Summary and Scope: Future WG Formation - The XSDMI WG will undertake the following work items:=20 (A) Development of a standard XML Schema Definition [XSD] to specify the XML encoding of the core SMIv2 data types defined in RFC2578.=20 (B) Development of a standard XML Schema Definition [XSD] to specify the XML encoding of some generic and common SMIv2 textual conventions, as identified at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-common-tcs.html.=20 (C) Definition of a standard set of security requirements for accessing MIB management data by potentially multiple protocols.=20 (D) Development of a standard set of algorithms for accessing SMIv2 management information, possibly using the NETCONF operation and/or data delivery mechanism.=20 Applications Performance Management (APM) BOF=20 Status - request submitted=20 Discussions - OPS Area list ops-area@ietf.org=20 Responsible AD: Dan Romascanu=20 BOF Chairs: Alan Clark (alan.d.clark@telchemy.com) and Al Morton (acmorton@att.com)=20 Internet-Drafts:=20 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-performance-metrics-06.t xt=20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-venna-ippm-app-loss-metrics-00=20 Summary and Scope: examination of a perceived gap in the development of performance metrics for application-layer protocols that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks=20 Comparison of Possible Solutions:=20 APM Directorate (with working process)=20 APM WG (with charter and working process)=20 These proposals are not yet approved. The IESG and IAB will meet on 5/29 to discuss them and the final decision will be made by 6/11. I suggest that the authors post the detailed BOF requests and that they are discussed on separate threads on this list (ops-area@ietf.org).=20 Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Mon May 21 10:43:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq96J-0004CN-ML; Mon, 21 May 2007 10:43:07 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq5sL-0008Bg-Nm for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq5sK-0008BV-0P for ops-area@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:29 -0400 Received: from imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.67]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hq5sJ-0003N4-Ad for ops-area@ietf.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:27 -0400 Received: from ibm60aec.bellsouth.net ([68.158.35.137]) by imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20070521111626.BSVZ15025.imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm60aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:26 -0400 Received: from TELCHADCPC ([68.158.35.137]) by ibm60aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20070521111626.NVBQ1030.ibm60aec.bellsouth.net@TELCHADCPC>; Mon, 21 May 2007 07:16:26 -0400 From: "Alan Clark" To: Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 07:15:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 thread-index: Acea611/FNDdD4cXRj+SsNsnNIQr8wAIFTRAACNL4iA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Message-Id: <20070521111626.NVBQ1030.ibm60aec.bellsouth.net@TELCHADCPC> X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fca741f5016e6ff607eaed2fd431d10d X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:43:04 -0400 Cc: Subject: [OPS-AREA] APM BOF Proposal X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1821123576==" Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1821123576== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C79B77.DF6721C0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C79B77.DF6721C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We are proposing a BOF for the Chicago meeting to address the need for a WG or Directorate related to application performance metrics. We would welcome any comments or feedback on this, and if the BOF is accepted then would very much welcome your participation. Regards Alan Clark, Al Morton APM BOF Application Performance Metrics Mailing Lists: TBD BOF Chairs: Alan Clark [alan@telchemy.com] Al Morton [acmorton@att.com] Possible Area Directorates: Operations and Management Area, TSV, RAI Ultimate Area Directorate: TBD BOF Problem Statement: There have always been some uncertainties about the performance and suitability of new technologies and applications for their intended audience, and the Internet is no exception. Most uncertainties are effectively addressed through quantified assessment of key performance indicators. Standardized performance metrics add the desirable features of consistent implementation, interpretation, and comparison. Although the IETF has two Working Groups dedicated to the development of performance metrics, they each have strict limitations in their charters: - The Benchmarking Methodology WG has addressed a range of networking technologies and protocols in their long history (such as IEEE 802.3, ATM, Frame Relay, and Routing Protocols), but their charter strictly limits their performance characterizations to the laboratory environment. - The IP Performance Metrics WG has the mandate to develop metrics applicable to live IP networks, but it is specifically prohibited from developing metrics that characterize traffic (such as a VoIP stream). The IETF does have current and completed activities related to the reporting of application performance metrics (e.g. RAQMON) and is also actively involved in the development of reliable transport protocols which would affect the relationship between IP performance and application performance. APM proposals that are beyond the scope of bmwg and ippm have begun to appear. Some recent drafts include: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-performance-metrics-06.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-venna-ippm-app-loss-metrics-00 Thus there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of IETF WGs: development of performance metrics for application-layer protocols that can be used to characterize traffic on live networks. There is a need for an application performance framework and application performance metrics that enable IP based applications to be characterized (and hence managed) when operating over UDP, TCP, FEC and the other robust transport protocols under development within IETF. However, the work undertaken must be strictly evaluated on an item by item basis, to avoid overlap with standards organizations already developing application performance metrics in this general area, ITU-T SG 12 for example. This is the problem to be solved. Potential Solutions: Two possible approaches to solving this problem have been suggested. + APM Directorate This Directorate would advise working groups initiating APM work (e.g. AVT for Voice and IP video quality metrics, sipping for SIP performance metrics, idr for BGP metrics) and provide expert reviews. Members of the directorate could review protocols for manageability from a performance perspective. The Directorate members would be drawn from experts currently involved in ippm, bmwg, ipfix, and other working groups. The APM directorate would be available to consult in all IETF areas, like other directorates. The members of the Directorate would create a BCP document that would provide guidance to the reviewers and reference for editors of IETF APM metrics documents. + APM WG This WG would be responsible for the development of RFCs that characterize the performance of applications, especially those utilizing IETF protocols. The WG would be responsible for advancing the RFCs along the standards track, according to the process defined in draft-bradner-metricstest-01.txt . The WG would partner with a specific protocol development WG whenever possible, to take advantage of willing experts and ensure that the metrics developed are both appropriate and relevant. Last, the WG would create a BCP document that would provide guidance for development of IETF APM metrics documents, including the requirement to include relevant protocol experts in the development. The BCP may also define the process to adopt new work in the APM WG, where a unique feature could be that proposals would be vetted in the relevant protocol WG before reaching the APM WG. The APM WG would avoid overlap with existing SDOs, and seek IESG approval for each new Metric RFC before the WG spends any resources on it. (more is needed for a complete charter) BOF Agenda: Examination of a perceived gap in IETF coverage and Problem Statement Comparison of Possible Solutions: + APM Directorate (with working process) + APM WG (with charter and working process) Discussion Assess consensus on the following questions: 1. Should IETF commit its resources to the formal development of application performance metrics in one or more key areas? 2. If yes, is there a preferred approach to manage metric development: + Protocol Development WGs with advice from an APM Directorate + APM WG with participation by experts from experts from the Protocol WG. + Both an APM Directorate and an APM WG are needed + Neither an APM Directorate or an APM WG are needed 3. If the APM Directorate approach is desirable, is the proposed method of working acceptable, or are modifications needed? 4. If the APM WG approach is desirable, is the proposed charter acceptable, or are modifications needed? ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C79B77.DF6721C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We are = proposing a BOF=20 for the Chicago meeting to address the need for a WG or Directorate = related to=20 application performance metrics.  We would welcome any comments or = feedback=20 on this, and if the BOF is accepted then would very much welcome your=20 participation.
 
Regards
 
Alan Clark, = Al=20 Morton
 
 
 
APM BOF

Application Performance Metrics =

Mailing=20 Lists: TBD

BOF Chairs:
Alan Clark = [alan@telchemy.com] 
Al Morton=20 [acmorton@att.com] 
 

Possible = Area=20 Directorates: Operations and Management Area, TSV, RAI
Ultimate Area=20 Directorate: TBD


BOF Problem Statement:

There have = always=20 been some uncertainties about the performance and
suitability of new=20 technologies and applications for their intended
audience, and the = Internet=20 is no exception. Most uncertainties are
effectively addressed = through=20 quantified assessment of key performance
indicators.  = Standardized=20 performance metrics add the desirable features
of consistent = implementation,=20 interpretation, and comparison.

Although the IETF has two Working = Groups=20 dedicated to the development
of performance metrics, they each have = strict=20 limitations in their
charters:
 
 - The Benchmarking = Methodology WG has addressed a range of networking
technologies and=20 protocols in their long history (such as IEEE 802.3,
ATM, Frame = Relay, and=20 Routing Protocols), but their charter strictly
limits their = performance=20 characterizations to the laboratory environment.

 - The IP=20 Performance Metrics WG has the mandate to develop metrics
applicable = to live=20 IP networks, but it is specifically prohibited from
developing = metrics that=20 characterize traffic (such as a VoIP stream).

The IETF does have = current=20 and completed activities related to the
reporting of application = performance=20 metrics (e.g. RAQMON) and is
also actively involved in the = development of=20 reliable transport
protocols which would affect the relationship = between IP=20 performance
and application performance.

APM proposals that = are=20 beyond the scope of bmwg and ippm have begun to appear.
Some recent = drafts=20 include:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-perfor= mance-metrics-06.txt=20
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-venna-ippm-app-loss-m= etrics-00

Thus=20 there is a gap in the currently chartered coverage of IETF = WGs:
development=20 of performance metrics for application-layer protocols that
can be = used to=20 characterize traffic on live networks.
 
There is a need for = an=20 application performance framework and
application performance = metrics that=20 enable IP based applications
to be characterized (and hence managed) = when=20 operating over
UDP, TCP, FEC and the other robust transport = protocols under=20 development
within IETF. However, the work undertaken must be = strictly=20 evaluated
on an item by item basis, to avoid overlap with standards=20 organizations
already developing application performance metrics in = this=20 general area,
ITU-T SG 12 for example. This is the problem to be = solved.=20


Potential Solutions:

Two possible approaches to = solving this=20 problem have been suggested.

 + APM Directorate
This = Directorate=20 would advise working groups initiating APM work (e.g. AVT for
Voice = and IP=20 video quality metrics, sipping for SIP performance metrics, idr
for = BGP=20 metrics) and provide expert reviews. Members of the directorate = could
review=20 protocols for manageability from a performance perspective. = The
Directorate=20 members would be drawn from experts currently involved in ippm, =
bmwg, ipfix,=20 and other working groups. The APM directorate
would be available to = consult=20 in all IETF areas, like other directorates.
The members of the = Directorate=20 would create a BCP document that would
provide guidance to the = reviewers and=20 reference for editors of IETF APM
metrics documents.

 + = APM WG=20
This WG would be responsible for the development of RFCs that=20 characterize
the performance of applications, especially those = utilizing IETF=20 protocols.
The WG would be responsible for advancing the RFCs along = the=20 standards
track, according to the process defined in=20 draft-bradner-metricstest-01.txt .
The WG would partner with a = specific=20 protocol development WG whenever
possible, to take advantage of = willing=20 experts and ensure that the metrics
developed are both appropriate = and=20 relevant. Last, the WG would create a
BCP document that would = provide=20 guidance for development of IETF APM
metrics documents, including = the=20 requirement to include relevant protocol
experts in the = development. =20 The BCP may also define the process to
adopt new work in the APM WG, = where a=20 unique feature could be that proposals
would be vetted in the = relevant=20 protocol WG before reaching the APM WG.
The APM WG would avoid = overlap with=20 existing SDOs, and seek IESG
approval for each new Metric RFC before = the WG=20 spends any resources
on it.
(more is needed for a complete=20 charter)


BOF Agenda:

Examination of a perceived gap in = IETF=20 coverage and Problem Statement

Comparison of Possible=20 Solutions:
 + APM Directorate (with working process)
 + = APM WG=20 (with charter and working process)

Discussion

Assess = consensus on=20 the following questions:

1. Should IETF commit its resources to = the=20 formal development of
application performance metrics in one or more = key=20 areas?

2. If yes, is there a preferred approach to manage metric=20 development:
 + Protocol Development WGs with advice from an APM = Directorate
 + APM WG with participation by experts from = experts from=20 the Protocol WG.
 + Both an APM Directorate and an APM WG are=20 needed
 + Neither an APM Directorate or an APM WG are = needed

3.=20 If the APM Directorate approach is desirable, is the proposed = method
of=20 working acceptable, or are modifications needed?

4. If the APM WG = approach is desirable, is the proposed charter
acceptable, or are=20 modifications needed?

------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C79B77.DF6721C0-- --===============1821123576== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area --===============1821123576==-- From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 25 03:46:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrUUn-0005bh-Fn; Fri, 25 May 2007 03:45:57 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HrFIM-0000We-8G for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:32:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrFIL-0000WV-Uf for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:32:05 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.53]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrFIL-0005po-5H for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 11:32:05 -0400 Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JIJ00A6CXSDSP@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:31:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JIJ009UBXSCU9@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:31:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from Harrington73653 ([10.124.12.41]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JIJ00JCEXRK2L@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 24 May 2007 23:31:24 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:30:53 -0400 From: David Harrington Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Two BOF proposals for the Chicago IETF In-reply-to: To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" , ops-area@ietf.org Message-id: <000801c79e18$8a2d0b40$290c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acebc5FmFdAIEWAHSpmZLwdh0TPFswAN8ijA References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 May 2007 03:45:57 -0400 Cc: X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The XSD for SMIv2 proposal says discussion should occur on the netconf WG mailing list. I believe that is not the right choice because the netconf WG is about the netconf protocol, while this proposal is about translting SMIv2 to XSD. Discussion should happen on the OPS Area list ops-area@ietf.org. Thanks, dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:45 AM > To: ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] Two BOF proposals for the Chicago IETF > > Today is the deadline for submitting preliminary requests for BOF > sessions at the Chicago IETF. Up to now we received two such > proposals, > which are listed at http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki > > > XSD for accessing SMIv2 data models (xsdmi) BOF > Status: request submitted including proposed WG charter > Discussions: NETCONF WG list netconf@ops.ietf.org > Responsible AD: Dan Romascanu > BOF Chair: David Harrington (ietfdbh@comcast.net) > Internet-Drafts: > draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-02 (XSD for SMIv2 Data Types and > Textual Conventions) > draft-li-ngo-access-mib-01 (SMIv2 Data Access for NETCONF) > Summary and Scope: Future WG Formation - The XSDMI WG will > undertake the > following work items: > (A) Development of a standard XML Schema Definition [XSD] to > specify the > XML encoding of the core SMIv2 data types defined in RFC2578. > (B) Development of a standard XML Schema Definition [XSD] to > specify the > XML encoding of some generic and common SMIv2 textual conventions, as > identified at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-common-tcs.html. > (C) Definition of a standard set of security requirements for > accessing > MIB management data by potentially multiple protocols. > (D) Development of a standard set of algorithms for accessing SMIv2 > management information, possibly using the NETCONF operation > and/or data delivery mechanism. > > > Applications Performance Management (APM) BOF > Status - request submitted > Discussions - OPS Area list ops-area@ietf.org > Responsible AD: Dan Romascanu > BOF Chairs: Alan Clark (alan.d.clark@telchemy.com) and Al Morton > (acmorton@att.com) > Internet-Drafts: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-performance-me > trics-06.t > xt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-venna-ippm-app-loss-metrics-00 > Summary and Scope: examination of a perceived gap in the > development of > performance metrics for application-layer protocols that can > be used to > characterize traffic on live networks > Comparison of Possible Solutions: > APM Directorate (with working process) > APM WG (with charter and working process) > > These proposals are not yet approved. The IESG and IAB will > meet on 5/29 > to discuss them and the final decision will be made by 6/11. I suggest > that the authors post the detailed BOF requests and that they are > discussed on separate threads on this list (ops-area@ietf.org). > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 25 15:01:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hrf28-0005Lf-Fd; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:04 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hrf26-0005LN-Mk for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hrf26-0005LF-Cm; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.100] helo=co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hrf24-00009a-RI; Fri, 25 May 2007 15:01:02 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2007 15:00:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,580,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="21761968:sNHT4045788654" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:00:16 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOF Request: Netconf Extensions and Evolution Thread-Index: AceV/bsTZVZMo4yaSqGjesun0VoQRgHcTTgwADPF+8AAIA01EAAPvS3g From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: ngo@ietf.org, "Netconf \(E-mail\)" Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: BOF Request: Netconf Extensions and Evolution X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org The following proposal for a BOF in Chicago was submitted by Sharon Chisholm. A decision needs to be made in the next few days. I would welcome comments in the next few days on ops-area@ietf.org. Thanks and Regards, Dan =20 -----Original Message----- From: Sharon Chisholm [mailto:schishol@nortel.com]=20 Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 2:44 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: agenda@ietf.org Subject: BOF Request: Netconf Extensions and Evolution Hi Netconf Extensions and Evolution (Nee) Mailing List: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo Description:=20 The NETCONF working group has successfully defined an effective and functional protocol, but there still remain some gaps in required functionality. This BOF will look at necessary extensions to the NETCONF protocol with the aim to charter a working group to address them. Extensions will focus on generally agreed to functionality that has just not yet been defined such as fine grain locking, advertising XML Schema (content) support, access control, etc. It will also include an XML Schema (content) definition to enable monitoring of the Netconf protocol. Note that the charter does not wish to dictate which Netconf layer problems should be solved at (content, operations, etc). Agenda: - Agenda Bashing and Administrivia - Go through proposed NETCONF updates - Partial Locks (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lengyel-ngo-partial-lock-00.t xt) - Advertising XML Schema availability (pending) - Netconf Monitoring (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chisholm-netconf-monitoring-0 0.txt) - Other relevant work - Agree on a proposed charter - See if there is consensus to try to form a working group Sharon=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue May 29 17:03:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht8qG-0005eM-Fm; Tue, 29 May 2007 17:02:56 -0400 Received: from ops-area by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht8qF-0005cv-Q9 for ops-area-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 17:02:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht8qF-0005bl-DE for ops-area@ietf.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 17:02:55 -0400 Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ht8q6-0007eP-9y for ops-area@ietf.org; Tue, 29 May 2007 17:02:55 -0400 Received: from 12.140.64.135.in-addr.arpa (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.12]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2007 17:02:45 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,589,1170651600"; d="scan'208"; a="21599505:sNHT11807904" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:02:44 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG Review: Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) Thread-Index: AceiNICB3ONuJguAQE2oqA8pHl4XWwAACXlA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196 Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: WG Review: Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: IESG Secretary [mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:00 AM To: new-work@ietf.org Subject: WG Review: Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg)=20 A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. =20 The following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by June 4th. +++ Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Current Status: Proposed Working Group Chair(s): TBD TBD Operations and Management Area Directors: Dan Romascanu Ronald Bonica Description: The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF. The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work items, when they arise. The working group meets if there are active proposals that require discussion. The working group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current work items and their associated milestones. All new work items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval with the IESG. The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the behavior or WGs in the O&M area (e.g., manageability requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have already concluded (e.g. advancement of documents on the standards track, application statements, extensions of MIB modules). The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers. It is not within the scope of the OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts of a WG charter items that could not come to convergence on what they were chartered to do. The currently active OPSAWG work items mostly fall under the following topics: (A) Development of a BCP document that will provide guidelines for authors and a reference for reviewers of IETF documents that specify new protocols or protocol extensions about the information about operational and manageability requirements that needs to be covered in these documents (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents (C) Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents that were developed in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules). Goals and Milestones: June 2007 - Initial submission for the "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols" Internet-Draft June 2007 - Initial submission for the "SNMP Engine ID Discovery" Internet-Draft October 2007 - Initial submission for the "Template for Generic Management Data Models" Internet-Draft October 2007 - Initial submission for the "Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog" Internet-Draft October 2007 - WGLC for the "SNMP Engine ID Discovery" Internet-Draft December 2007 - WGLC for the "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols" Internet-Draft December 2007 - Submit the "SNMP Engine ID Discovery" Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFC February 2008 - Submit the "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols" Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration as BCP April 2008 - WGLC for the "Template for Generic Management Data Models"=20 April 2008 - WGLC for the "Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog" June 2008 - Submit the "Template for Generic Management Data Models" to the IESG for consideration as BCP June 2008 - Submit the "Structured Data Elements (SDEs) for syslog" to the IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area