From ietfc@btconnect.com Fri Jun 1 04:53:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202FD21F8659 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:53:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bPNvdUX+1yl for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AE121F85C9 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 04:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail234-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.254) by CH1EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.43.70.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:26 +0000 Received: from mail234-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail234-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D696A1440144; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.224.141; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0702HT003.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -33 X-BigFish: PS-33(zz9371I542M1432N1418I1451Lzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839hd24hf0ah304l) Received: from mail234-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail234-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1338551610814334_8284; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.245]) by mail234-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CAB1800045; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3PRD0702HT003.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.55.224.141) by CH1EHSMHS001.bigfish.com (10.43.70.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:23 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0610HT001.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.117) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.3.4.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.15.74.2; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:53:36 +0000 Message-ID: <013701cd3fec$c347b260$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Thomas Narten References: <201205241613.q4OGDXrj028911@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F633936092@dfweml506-mbx><201205241955.q4OJtreh030888@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F633936288@dfweml506-mbx> <201205251020.q4PAKIlA013751@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <014001cd3f4f$8fc91a20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <201205311937.q4VJbwmk009602@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:50:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.236.117] X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] definitions of continuity and connectivity X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:53:58 -0000 Stepping back (and top-posting), I think that there is a difference between literary style and technical specification, that good literary style calls for the use of continuity, connectivity, liveness and all the other riches that the English language has to offer, whereas technical specification calls for the boring, repetitive use of the same old words. In the context of checking that a link is operational, many words would do; I use keepalive, others heart beat etc but for me, there is little difference in the semantics. In the MPLS-TP context, which trill is quoting, there is a requirement to detect a failure, switch to protection and restore service to the client within 50mS, so a rate of 3.3mS with three failures causing a Loss Of Continuity event is a typical example, and this is referred to as proactive monitoring, or Continuity Check. (With BGP, for example, three strikes and you're out still applies but now the Hold Time is three seconds, or more). In MPLS-TP, on-demand checks are referred to as Connectivity Verification, and are used when the overhead of CC is too great, or to trouble shoot further a fault. It could have been called Continuity Verification, but the originator of it chose otherwise, so Continuity Check and Connectivity Verification it is:-( Any attempt to understand CC and CV by resorting to a knowledge of English is ... well, futile - why aren't they Keep Alive and Liveness Verification? rather, accept that they are what they are, proactive and on-demand (although some MPLS RFC muddy the waters with references to 'proactive CV'). I think that 'tissa-trill' has failed to grasp this. I would use oam-framework, RFC6371, as my main reference, with more detail in such as RFC6426. As you may know, after the IETF had defined protocols to meet all the MPLS-TP requirements, the ITU-T decided to use a different set, in part at least. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Narten" To: "t.petch" Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] definitions of continuity and connectivity > Hi Tom. > > > > I have a very practical question. Are the two MUST requirements above > > > the same, or are they different? I can't tell without knowing what the > > > difference between continuity and connectivity is. > > > Different. > > > This was hammered out in MPLS but RFC5860 is sloppy in this regard. > > > Continuity Check is proactive, at a rate commensurate with the time > > within which failures should be detected, which could be mS or could be > > seconds. Thus it must be low cost, simple, basic. > > Does this also imply multiple messages sent, and getting a percentage > of packets lost? As opposed to a single request/response? > > > Connectivity Verification is on demand, run when it is needed, perhaps > > as a result of an alarm; it may not be run for months, so can afford to > > be heavyweight, gathering everything that might be needed. > > Does this also imply a single message/response transaction? Or can > this also imply something more sophisticated, involving multiple > messages? > > What I'm trying to do is separate what "continuity" and "connectivity" > are intended to achieve, vs. mechanics for acheiving the desired > semantics. But a lot of the discussion about the terms seems to be > implying a solution rather than what the solution is required to > achieve. > > And while I understand that on-demand vs. proactive is an important > distinction for when/how to invoke functionality, I'd like to > understand the distinction between the two in terms of what they are > supposed to achieve (independently of whether invoked proactively or > on-demand). > > Thomas > > From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Fri Jun 1 18:52:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4CC11E8133; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ssgLsZzH-Kz; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfcpa.amsl.com [12.22.58.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B99A11E812B; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CD8FDB1E00C; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:51:24 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20120602015124.CD8FDB1E00C@rfc-editor.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [OPSAWG] RFC 6632 on An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:52:14 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6632 Title: An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards Author: M. Ersue, Ed., B. Claise Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: June 2012 Mailbox: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, bclaise@cisco.com Pages: 85 Characters: 210159 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6632.txt This document gives an overview of the IETF network management standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF Standards Track network management protocols and data models. The document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this document is, on the one hand, to help system developers and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management technologies and data models. This document does not cover Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) technologies on the data-path, e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM, and pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From sob@harvard.edu Wed Jun 6 05:24:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F9421F8877 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8WVJ0nglv5s7 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D9821F8875 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (entwedge0000000.university.harvard.edu [10.35.2.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58C7E86E4 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:24:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ENTWHUBT0000005.university.harvard.edu (10.32.208.51) by ENTWEDGE0000000.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:23:54 -0400 Received: from ENTWEXMB0000008.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.1.61]) by ENTWHUBT0000005.university.harvard.edu ([10.32.208.51]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:24:20 -0400 From: "Bradner, Scott" To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: agenda items for Vancouver? Thread-Index: AQHNQ99MZnuha3/el060gAMJfRgJMA== Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:24:19 +0000 Message-ID: <00E58D9D-46DD-4976-819B-68005C371AC4@harvard.edu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [140.247.60.212] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] agenda items for Vancouver? X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:24:24 -0000 does anyone have topics for a opsawg session in Vancouver? if so, please let the list know (we will be sharing a session slot with the ops area meeting like we have d= one the last few meetings) thanks Scott From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sat Jun 9 13:15:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBD521F8418 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:15:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xtb88H27bARM for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D16721F867D for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so3912503pbc.31 for ; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:15:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QT/Mcg3CmxikzNkLSa1YF/yMTHraTOzV2Srfo/Bimyw=; b=bWPFCk8VWvKCDAKOYQGxuXkEBlxvx05Dp+F3WxaMAEKqhs56HlFoVbipfRqmUDcNqh aCMtl6KOTFDcbSCjiukTDJ9TVNm0Fh92+yF+RHfjxV756caVM1YbRIPaOHF/rRKYuae6 dTc3bUtXSMJV1yKkiadXkXBecCUuoXYdedr5jdfLMpr1gR7DPFIUBm7nnI2HpdDXsHBs ln/TkK18aDjEfbMJ/WbpoInu+0p47tXm6Ka0XzahgvzZcGJxpeg6luy9kvroq7m+LMUp 8EAzo1GXlpNQroXoGAWjj9n443AYK7n1ySExdymGYOP+pZkLA2tFeO14Oyd34ZPfqmqt sSyw== Received: by 10.68.219.162 with SMTP id pp2mr11426601pbc.85.1339272941349; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pd9sm12411592pbc.26.2012.06.09.13.15.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD3AEEA.5000208@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:15:38 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com, "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:15:46 -0000 Based on the response to the call to adopt the drafts draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment and draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls as working group items, we saw clear consensus to adopt both. Apologies to the authors and working group for our tardiness in getting these adopted in the data tracker. Melinda From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sat Jun 9 15:23:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B1F21F8589 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wwBvo-lIcvI for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E4021F857F for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so3794027dac.31 for ; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tkVHohEOfkQQscICEJVF/vlrQPUfEyd+IKrAbWTaXGs=; b=xDJzK6xvcz/dx4MDTXgu8n5SVddkPYc5MBf6q5Dc/OkgS+fgZrMBnTWxQGHue3KTgV 7wReqF8Soj9d0Vki/5Wpl6nWs/HfYby0yk9qVYY/YkbOdYp1cqplNHcx3M1jOMMMcLPc gU8AoLaSj7o9zhxJy/LHPotVkvQ8PemIHkwoFoG+See1DtphveFBK6E9uPrAchfW4/jv D7nNA68i6SJ0SbpfGNkhfHXH3iGjjAFvrG9QyvdECSu+t0ZuJznGn5/1qLwzYsVwo9Ut QzdDBD9axp5eopk623RrXOfznE6l+WOEroTsTpDxxP1L4mXxSplV4mnQHMbO3JgUgso8 2VeA== Received: by 10.68.189.229 with SMTP id gl5mr10039329pbc.14.1339280611911; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hb5sm12683886pbc.58.2012.06.09.15.23.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 14:23:29 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:23:32 -0000 Among the dropped balls we're picking up is moving draft-ietf-opsawg- automated-network-configuration forward. As things stand we were approaching last call and it looked like there were no further concerns, but given the amount of time that's lapsed I think we need to put out one more call for feedback before sending it into working group last call. One of the best ways to be a hero in the IETF is to review documents and publish comments. So, please give this draft a careful read, and if there are issues you feel need to be addressed before WG last call, please raise them on the list. Many thanks, Melinda From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Sat Jun 9 23:13:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F1B21F8664 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xoLY2J4wu9Pk for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:13:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48F821F8661 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A6520BD7; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHREisltA-4x; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D3420BC1; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id DAD1F1FBBDD6; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:10 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Melinda Shore Message-ID: <20120610061310.GB59407@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 06:13:29 -0000 --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:23:29PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > Among the dropped balls we're picking up is moving draft-ietf-opsawg- > automated-network-configuration forward. As things stand we were > approaching last call and it looked like there were no further > concerns, but given the amount of time that's lapsed I think we need > to put out one more call for feedback before sending it into working > group last call. Melinda, I counted three _WG last calls_ on this document. Can you please go back and check the WG mailing list archive? Here is the email from Christopher saying that the document passed and goes to the IESG. I am somewhat puzzled. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (212.201.44.23) by SHUBCAS01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:57:33 +0200 Received: from atlas1.jacobs-university.de (atlas1a.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.13]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AAC20C9E for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:57:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by atlas1.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E573BF for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:57:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-100 required=6.2 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Authentication-Results: demetrius1.jacobs-university.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ietf.org Received: from atlas1a.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.13]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id ywbyDMtnYsMk for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:57:28 +0200 (CEST) X-JacobsISPWhiteListed: med ietf.org DNSWLId 1703 Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by atlas1a.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:57:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A4111E808C; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:57:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1334789846; bh=iYS3Hghdj+W3pBOmBlMmPct4z0zuWeMmxd3dM7hGDzQ=; h=From:Date:Message-Id:To:Mime-Version:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=SsDiIiQMxEjyXR76qaIsxMlBXlLyKBIgXG6qula8PgbwRDg5OzjLzHRlwe4Ex5cZ4 n14J7jfN651UC7SWrDf2m+SxVLUchNygIpF4msdz+VsQoBn5wJBC+dEHRrVY0SbxW3 cgU/uEftZCFQyLQ493kQwbacywWEcVyaMzvvs9N4= X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E4721F8470 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:57:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pRIg2C2YvmYG for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgaard.org (odin.asgaard.org [204.29.151.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0A021F846F for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC9E11084F0; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:57:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at asgaard.org Received: from asgaard.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (odin.asgaard.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9XP4TiA3ipq; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:57:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.238.223] (63-145-238-4.dia.static.qwest.net [63.145.238.4]) by asgaard.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6906511084E4; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:57:13 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:57:12 -0700 Message-ID: <7363771F-B336-4A8C-9800-E0EDAF3FA77B@asgaard.org> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) CC: , , Subject: [OPSAWG] wg calls X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Return-Path: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: SHUBCAS01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Mailbox: MSFTFF;1;0;0 0 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 R3JlZXRpbmdzLAoKCUFzIHBlciB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBvZiB0aGUgY2FsbHMsIHdlIGFyZSBzZW5k aW5nICBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWF1dG9tYXRlZC1uZXR3b3JrLWNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gdG8gdGhlIElF U0cgcmVxdWVzdGluZyBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbi4KCglXZSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQgd2UgaGF2ZSBjb25z ZW5zdXMgb24gYWRvcHRpbmcgYm90aCBkcmFmdC1rdWFyc2luZ2gtbHNuLWRlcGxveW1lbnQgYW5k IGRyYWZ0LWJha2VyLW9wc2F3Zy1maXJld2FsbHMgYXMgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBpdGVtcy4gIFdl IHdpbGwgZG8gc28gdG9tb3Jyb3cgdW5sZXNzIHdlIGhlYXIgZGlzc2VudC4gIFBsZWFzZSBzcGVh ayB1cCBub3cuCgoJQ2hyaXMKCi0tICAK5p2O5p+v552/CkNoZWNrIG15IFBHUCBrZXkgaGVyZTog aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXNnYWFyZC5vcmcvfmNkbC9jZGwuYXNjCkN1cnJlbnQgdkNhcmQgaGVyZTog aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXNnYWFyZC5vcmcvfmNkbC9jZGwudmNmCkNoZWNrIG15IGNhbGVuZGFyIGF2 YWlsYWJpbGl0eTogaHR0cHM6Ly90dW5nbGUubWUvY2RsCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwpPUFNBV0cgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0Ck9QU0FXR0BpZXRm Lm9yZwpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29wc2F3Zwo= --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sat Jun 9 23:23:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F9821F869D for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id saXPvcOKaWlJ for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD1B21F8694 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so4199471pbc.31 for ; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G3BPlpAUOkojCnwAHAU3HKfAq96jXhwrX44g8pf3anI=; b=TxaHsLR+UhAFpPUGg/b+8YEQFf9hL6cftnvJnRtmM2pP3j5qIFQBe6op/ULMaNM0Q9 LWa6PFM2xw2xrcNChQSzjQwETSULKWpZ8BgEaoT0QLPGHgCDMWtkAUCX2YT+gZbfVyRX LxnPVuMYzQVflFl3K7dHPQqn02I9tty9WEXnHVfDSjCOCoHCft0TC6SdwhfFPbw+Bnt5 /slXvM5cNMttjkg79lPZPAu9clIv3pVFpQykNt9cPOW5KlgVwsoEyXC3482xHIQ15Br1 XEvCV0Ge3xGnRhTjxbzKk5GHeIvhAGhFLVD8U1U02mtIhrDoHR7CicAMMhMPoWPqNVhy 4jAw== Received: by 10.68.220.231 with SMTP id pz7mr14307286pbc.110.1339309427244; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vi10sm13889624pbc.4.2012.06.09.23.23.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD43D70.5030500@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:23:44 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> <20120610061310.GB59407@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120610061310.GB59407@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 06:23:48 -0000 On 6/9/12 10:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > I counted three _WG last calls_ on this document. Can you please go > back and check the WG mailing list archive? Here is the email from > Christopher saying that the document passed and goes to the IESG. > I am somewhat puzzled. I understand that, but to have such a long time elapse between when we say we're going to do something and when we actually do it is way outside my comfort zone. I am not sure what happened to Chris - he has been out of touch for a very long time. I am trying to hit a virtual "reset" button and get things moving again. Melinda From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Sun Jun 10 03:16:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B5821F85C6 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:16:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5uh+q5cp-pdw for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29C921F85C4 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E327420BDA; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:05 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z79IKG-RU1-a; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF2F20BD7; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 50DB91FBBFB1; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:16:05 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Melinda Shore , Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120610101605.GA59822@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Melinda Shore , Ronald Bonica , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> <20120610061310.GB59407@elstar.local> <4FD43D70.5030500@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FD43D70.5030500@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:16:09 -0000 On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 10:23:44PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 6/9/12 10:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >I counted three _WG last calls_ on this document. Can you please go > >back and check the WG mailing list archive? Here is the email from > >Christopher saying that the document passed and goes to the IESG. > >I am somewhat puzzled. > > I understand that, but to have such a long time elapse between > when we say we're going to do something and when we actually do > it is way outside my comfort zone. I am not sure what happened > to Chris - he has been out of touch for a very long time. I am > trying to hit a virtual "reset" button and get things moving > again. I am not aware of anything that has changed impacting the I-D content. If I am wrong, please explain. There has been a hickup on the chairs side to followup on what they announced. I have been contacting the chairs regularly since the public statement that this document is ready to go to the IESG. Now we are being set back to pre WG last call. Please also consider the comfort zone of the authors/editors. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com Sun Jun 10 07:05:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B4D21F85F3 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XpBMa9cFM4t6 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A3421F85F2 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2120363vbb.31 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jLRzLdiBbZvmupe2Kb+Nozr23tRi2p370/oaIxTmR1Y=; b=p7zR86IcyVXy0aff/MAbG/WoIHyFEjX0jw2G5jVkO0dgms3YQ3wJNANnvkneZ5BulV HYr363PCo7/LSo+jJ67cH2XBQmaWjUhjRED0HDoK+Jp0167EFNk8BuLmcy0RZQ1eOKic w52CS5y1gt88/qFlQuS3yaeLWon1SZOIqjWhYQGgkhDMalzp7MrZzj5DRQrIvPJTjrOL SY+z4RAvaGWi4puFfPUCgCWjrS0XBQjUMvHeGBwRq9UhDLq/JNbOyO5XUlKdhZJlH7X+ TdxNo/iARqQFrDv3xgTeQyRwCfMvL3oFMaOx9uvEGHPUdYciyJkRnwrVS//ePhHHBToF EDzw== Received: by 10.220.214.139 with SMTP id ha11mr10843313vcb.16.1339337143004; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.235] (CPE84c9b2590d49-CM80c6ab7f57ed.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.229.196.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l4sm3461566vdh.1.2012.06.10.07.05.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:05:38 -0400 From: Victor Kuarsingh To: Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt In-Reply-To: <4FD43D70.5030500@gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:05:44 -0000 Melinda, No problem. I will follow your lead. Regards, Victor K On 12-06-10 2:23 AM, "Melinda Shore" wrote: >On 6/9/12 10:13 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> I counted three _WG last calls_ on this document. Can you please go >> back and check the WG mailing list archive? Here is the email from >> Christopher saying that the document passed and goes to the IESG. >> I am somewhat puzzled. > >I understand that, but to have such a long time elapse between >when we say we're going to do something and when we actually do >it is way outside my comfort zone. I am not sure what happened >to Chris - he has been out of touch for a very long time. I am >trying to hit a virtual "reset" button and get things moving >again. > >Melinda >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >OPSAWG@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sun Jun 10 09:13:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF5821F85F6 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JgFX5SKEQa7 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBA921F85D4 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so4329211dac.31 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sz3AP9lMEBPPCktenbMmZRmhi+k4lZtwnj8ybyjs4cw=; b=wOpN4uWXKEaoaNJ9Ntxg6OqfoZoHN+N67dzgbwGASPu0t+jaxvXq0IBwhKAAaSpUAQ 1VqdYYJJC8EzNqU2nXmU6cDfLQtvrWq6nEI/JYv2FAd+Jidd36gyNoHDVFiX7t9EeW6h PmHggBdb4PUXBdD84IAiUneD7QFQg443bhnKlj7tMzU/a6+XfPT3Ux4EIK3A/TuEzOcH QV94tN4Dash7JnAhTyErfgWITCS+/rOX+A/rlwNXaq+wUEig/NemOvWPbXjX/I9Cfkqv qU040RbOEoNLpaCFZuC7zlLYmyOa7psQuvp+MV/LEWBnMWf6t72RT/pw8VKqjAph8z+G w1Vw== Received: by 10.68.221.72 with SMTP id qc8mr17456368pbc.63.1339344807407; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id np8sm15247075pbc.71.2012.06.10.09.13.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD4C7A4.3080606@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:13:24 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bonica , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <4FD3CCE1.5050102@gmail.com> <20120610061310.GB59407@elstar.local> <4FD43D70.5030500@gmail.com> <20120610101605.GA59822@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120610101605.GA59822@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:13:28 -0000 On 6/10/12 2:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > There has been a hickup on the chairs side to followup on what they > announced. Absolutely, and we're working on getting back on track. This will be quick - nobody has any interest in a protracted process. There was next to no discussion in March and while I expect that to be the case now I think it's a good idea to give people a day or two to provide feedback if they've got it. Melinda From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sun Jun 10 18:45:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7670A21F8518 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u3CwmwFjCZqg for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED1721F8517 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so4833881pbc.31 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J7aS+8BNUCYAC7Q0BILv/KMByhhLHNzNUYwmkyaykaQ=; b=1CR6pR84mDUQW4gV5/8O7wKqnL/A7QjgjUC2me0nxkDnDiETmUPk7WcUe5Qs9ZJYCQ Zb83NyPfbWeFKugi2DopQRTklam4wyWzFJF2dmXoecX7P/BQPDSsntqIWiD2PtZPNSHL zHwNtsy1o8HzHqfkLE6CjKlEpz7ICaQXtpspUSueFbHpXvu5+BxcGL5D4B4HiKIxzMdo 4JV/plbZnc2utlwhlOqJ+oyokjlzmjZNco9SYb98SGEy2Tve8DoQ975qcWJnvts1a8Bd CpjEcWaXoGEgTwVAX7zNUpfONR5/sF3Riir/pkGZPHLnY90XOSFnjGxWRNQto/MpBEFl HkEg== Received: by 10.68.222.197 with SMTP id qo5mr3506149pbc.72.1339379152515; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ph1sm16615448pbb.45.2012.06.10.18.45.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD54DCE.2010206@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:45:50 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] IETF 84 planning/preparedness X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:45:57 -0000 We're starting to see requests for time for our session at IETF 84. This is a reminder that we have a strong preference for only allocating meeting time to drafts that have had some discussion on the mailing list and in which there seems to be active interest (note that this helps improve our use of meeting time - less time spent on initial presentations means more time spent in discussion). So, if you've got a draft that you'd like to bring to opsawg's attention, now's the time to get it submitted and to start a discussion here, on this mailing list. Also note that we've adopted two drafts since the last meeting: draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls-00 (which is going to be resubmitted under a new title) and draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00. Please give those a read prior to the meeting and post comments, etc. to the mailing list. We'll let you know as soon as we've got a meeting slot assigned. Melinda From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Jun 11 13:11:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07DDD21F856C for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id smpckrqKnsyZ for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C6211E8087 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so6019585pbc.31 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6irhGXZILTEdDSVmKmiVywxR1NLQmY9RL1Wz/h5OSDw=; b=dQltZqo95yhY2h0uJqrwTgYeu6SrDiplkGYgwSiXwIjvd2zHJPIT/eChurDBtTU3LV oAqUTAjY2EbhPDdOqUvSX9nalZ0IP7Os2J7kZqgYr5zEtoMe3UR552piFUCR1359LmPm GXBa9sKez+7O2BHjGTZCLoFd67IeS6e+HUpWlf9pQSVY892j1/g2YqL7tT74lURBTbq7 U8bBPiPyIC8d5bT9p0tmgYF/hKGKnsbIYgd0wFAL97V7lZceNExp3WxKDxfHS54cRnVC tVa2o0zU9cPXU0Y67Dq1RB25fQlnMKvo17ijCAfN0qdu53DXJLgQ5VY1QRQeikGyz5RZ uisg== Received: by 10.68.218.7 with SMTP id pc7mr27250018pbc.88.1339445475036; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-46-142-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.46.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mt9sm19519357pbb.14.2012.06.11.13.11.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD650E0.5060303@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:11:12 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] WGLC complete on draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:11:16 -0000 We've completed working group last call on draft-ietf-opsawg-automated- network-configuration and are sending it on to the IESG. Many apologies to the authors and the working group for the delay. Melinda From rbonica@juniper.net Mon Jun 11 13:32:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E7021F84DD for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWh1Ld4lvf7O for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5227521F85CD for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9ZV1WI+zgFq8BRYdHtn5QRr20kXkWBS@postini.com; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:32:34 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:28:47 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:28:47 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:28:46 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "George, Wes" , Marc Blanchet , Brian Haberman , Ralph Droms Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:28:45 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption Thread-Index: Ac1GfKrOQ26O8NtuSDWvAisyZd0plwBk6ejw Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CAB05E2@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <4FD3AEEA.5000208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD3AEEA.5000208@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:32:35 -0000 Folks, draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment may fall within the charter of the SUNSET4 W= G. The SUNSET4 chairs and ADs are copied on this message. Marc, Wes, Brian, Ralph, Do you think that draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment falls under the charter of= SUNSET4?=20 Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:16 PM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Cc: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com; opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption >=20 > Based on the response to the call to adopt the drafts draft-kuarsingh- > lsn-deployment and draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls as working group items, > we saw clear consensus to adopt both. > Apologies to the authors and working group for our tardiness in getting > these adopted in the data tracker. >=20 > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From rbonica@juniper.net Mon Jun 11 19:40:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9280221F852B for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:40:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FsEc7LViZBPb for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275E521F8523 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9asDmH8Y8zMe8iQzBnstsOxbdUlMcYP@postini.com; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:40:19 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:39:15 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:39:14 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:39:12 -0400 Thread-Topic: AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1IRI0MWNw0vGXyTn+TBqO2OT6DHQ== Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:40:21 -0000 Authors, I'm sorry that you had to wait so long to get this document through WG Last= Call. In order to compensate, I started my AD review a bit early. The foll= owing are a few questions: 1) What is the scope of your document? Does it apply to routers in an ISP c= ore? ISP edge? Enterprise edge?=20 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge significantly from = the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your model is supe= rior to the models used in those networks? 3) What is the purpose of this document? Please comment on the following po= ssible motivations: - to provide guidance to those who have not already experienced success in = the area of automated configuration - to convert networks that have already experienced success to the model th= at you describe - to motivate the work described in Section 9 - other 4) In Section 9, do we really need three different ways to locate the confi= guration server? Couldn't we avoid all of this work by pre-configuring ever= ything that the device needs to identify and contact the configuration serv= er? (Many networks do this today.) 5) Is G6 really a gap? Are you suggesting that we build security mechanisms= into every network management protocol that lacks them? Or should we just = avoid those protocols? 6) Who is the intended audience for this draft? What behavior change do you= expect from the intended audience?=20 -------------------------- Ron Bonica vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf From randy@psg.com Tue Jun 12 00:20:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A0421F8555 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:20:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sW6eK9vcfIY1 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB1C21F8549 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SeLPG-0005RF-9f; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:20:51 +0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:20:48 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Ronald Bonica In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:20:52 -0000 > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge significantly > from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your > model is superior to the models used in those networks? has the model in the draft actually been implemented and used in a real network? randy From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue Jun 12 01:37:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C35621F8618 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TRcqRxhYTY1t for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8214221F85DF for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F04520BE0; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LyMQsn_o81M; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABF420825; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1459C1FC056F; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:07 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:37:12 -0000 On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge significantly from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your model is superior to the models used in those networks? Can you provide details how they diverge significantly? This would help a lot. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From wesley.george@twcable.com Tue Jun 12 08:46:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB6C21F86D4 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJ+zve7zmr8A for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0383621F86AB for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,758,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="377350507" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 12 Jun 2012 11:46:12 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:46:50 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Ronald Bonica , Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" , Marc Blanchet , Brian Haberman , Ralph Droms Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:46:49 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption Thread-Index: Ac1GfKrOQ26O8NtuSDWvAisyZd0plwBk6ejwACh0roA= Message-ID: References: <4FD3AEEA.5000208@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CAB05E2@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CAB05E2@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com" , "opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:46:51 -0000 There's a meeting in a few days to discuss exactly this sort of thing among= a group of WG chairs and AD's in order to get clearer guidance on sunset4'= s charter, and where LSN items fit between this WG, BEHAVE and sunset4. So... TBD, please stand by, your call is important to us. :-) Thanks, Wes George > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:29 PM > To: Melinda Shore; opsawg@ietf.org; George, Wes; Marc Blanchet; Brian > Haberman; Ralph Droms > Cc: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com; opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption > > Folks, > > draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment may fall within the charter of the > SUNSET4 WG. The SUNSET4 chairs and ADs are copied on this message. > > Marc, Wes, Brian, Ralph, > > Do you think that draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment falls under the charter > of SUNSET4? > > Ron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Melinda Shore > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:16 PM > > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > Cc: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com; opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG draft adoption > > > > Based on the response to the call to adopt the drafts draft-kuarsingh- > > lsn-deployment and draft-baker-opsawg-firewalls as working group > > items, we saw clear consensus to adopt both. > > Apologies to the authors and working group for our tardiness in > > getting these adopted in the data tracker. > > > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 12 12:53:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC2F21F86FE; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFL4cX1ZZBUj; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB1E21F86A0; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:53:33 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Gr= oup Working Group of the IETF. Title : On Firewalls in Internet Security Author(s) : Fred Baker Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-12 Abstract: There is an ongoing discussion regarding the place of firewalls in security. This note is intended to capture and try to make sense out of it. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From balajivenkat@force10networks.com Tue Jun 12 22:02:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1831021F8570 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:02:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqEG1Hat77Fg for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.force10networks.com (maa.force10networks.com [59.163.202.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DA321F8618 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EXCH-CLUSTER-11.force10networks.com ([10.16.127.21]) by exch7-maa-fe.force10networks.com ([10.16.126.10]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:32:43 +0530 From: Balaji Venkat Venkataswami To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:32:41 +0530 Thread-Topic: Request for review and comments. Thread-Index: Ac1JIcL9NeaXG7fmTFKefEYU8dGJrw== Message-ID: <5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037@EXCH-CLUSTER-11.force10networks.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037EXCHCLUSTER11_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "phoose@fb.com" Subject: [OPSAWG] Request for review and comments. X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:02:47 -0000 --_000_5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037EXCHCLUSTER11_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, The following internet draft http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-opsawg-flowoam-req-00.txt is available for review. Please feel free to review and comment on it. Here is a brief background behind this draft. A draft for Traceflow solution was earlier submitted to the intarea working= group and brought for consideration in the opsawg group as well in IETF83 in Paris. The URL to the Traceflow solution draft which was presented in Paris was a= s follows... http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-intarea-traceflow-00.txt At the presentation (given by our colleague Shivakumar) there was consensus= in the opsawg group that there should be a split of the requirements for the framework for flow-oam and the solut= ions under this framework with respect to the documents. In light of this the new requirements draft titled in the first URL in this= email was submitted to the opsawg group. This requirements document is a first cut and we would like to get as many = opinions as possible before incorporating these comments in the draft. thanks and regards, balaji venkat --_000_5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037EXCHCLUSTER11_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

 

The following internet draft

 

ht= tp://www.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-opsawg-flowoam-req-00.txt

 

is available for review. Please feel free to review an= d comment on it.

 

Here is a brief background behind this draft.  

 

A draft for Traceflow solution was earlier submitted t= o the intarea working group and brought for

consideration in the opsawg group as well in IETF83 in Paris.

 

The URL to the Traceflow solution draft which was pres= ented in Paris was  as follows...

 

h= ttp://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-intarea-traceflow-00.txt

 

At the presentation (given by our colleague Shivakumar= ) there was consensus in the opsawg group that there should

be a split of the requirements for the framework for flow-oam and the solutions under this framework

with respect to the documents.

 

In light of this the new requirements draft titled in = the first URL in this email was submitted to the opsawg group.

 

This requirements document is a first cut and we would= like to get as many opinions as possible before

incorporating these comments in the draft.<= /p>

 

thanks and regards,

balaji venkat

--_000_5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037EXCHCLUSTER11_-- From fred@cisco.com Tue Jun 12 23:00:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A84E721F8745 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6D+3n5buTqLy for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1399C21F8744 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1648; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339567244; x=1340776844; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MA4Nj5mUsBVtnbCa+eynG1hrZXXG1Xrxy9RFJvrwBm4=; b=PaziRl2t8/yoDPm0zuXy/VkqvNIpuEAF6LqNe7MC4u6CQYsJUuQd54wk b3Zmw7AmZACD/wiVVcunuXpHvWmaOUUaoU9+1JT9O7zhQimz6WZrAGP1J X3WLAxh56V1C4XWfEEzAIsTz/kX39cnq+yOBBWC00R/rWUWQR5Q7dEVbD c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EADIs2E+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABFtTeBB4IYAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0GwtGJzAZCRmHZAQMmVugB4sngnaCO2ADiEGMYIEShEKFLoMUgWaDAA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,762,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="48659370" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2012 06:00:43 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpn5-222.cisco.com (sjc-vpn5-222.cisco.com [10.21.88.222]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5D60giv007815 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:00:43 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by sjc-vpn5-222.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:43 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by sjc-vpn5-222.cisco.com on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:43 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:00:03 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:00:44 -0000 In Paris, I had at least two people tell me that they would be sending = me comments or would do something more substantive, earning co-author = bragging rights. If they have sent them, I missed them. This is the = draft that used to be draft-baker-..., except with a WG name. = Comments/discussion are of interest. On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:53 PM, = wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area = Working Group Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : On Firewalls in Internet Security > Author(s) : Fred Baker > Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-06-12 >=20 > Abstract: > There is an ongoing discussion regarding the place of firewalls in > security. This note is intended to capture and try to make sense = out > of it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-00 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From melinda.shore@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 11:45:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B20611E809F for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmSqkaznzNGY for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05E011E8086 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1412305dac.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-forwarded-message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7LYKtbTFkyVcZ0U8RGN+enhmn+2UGqC4xVEYx+q5/a8=; b=MvtqdFe1ujiAds6Xsh1cGgIomxZ0t3X2KckoasQXe+lgPUmADhE+u6r4wrxAg2CHQD rr82PpaGI4Sho/63MTUzTaes11kGh8zz3y3xLpehws3M09uGPGs/yMF3zZB5v0Qn6+Q5 EO0gIxptM4BAefD2tLGuE+wmOtDa9ylTz9i1QJ0wmijF55tRg5Row49Bg48UylYue1Fn B1nvk2VVEiEsU2zCnWVmlssAhG8fUgdK9ZB4CWUzvOeA/OqqSBEgrpW9b177d2EaQkNn dfFl+/yI3dPSXVdFyDPUynjGG0LedZsgWoDUvO/DUZ71gT+k+UxeLvC4k8O+H+RoGv6h X27g== Received: by 10.68.228.102 with SMTP id sh6mr52247874pbc.134.1339613157510; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-82-149-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.82.149]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id os1sm6581007pbb.49.2012.06.13.11.45.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD8DFE3.6020501@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:45:55 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:45:58 -0000 I've taken the liberty of sending a heads-up on this to opsec. Melinda -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org CC: opsawg@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : On Firewalls in Internet Security Author(s) : Fred Baker Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-12 Abstract: There is an ongoing discussion regarding the place of firewalls in security. This note is intended to capture and try to make sense out of it. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/submission.filename }}-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From rbonica@juniper.net Wed Jun 13 18:36:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9CE11E80D2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:36:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iv5ePzhs+FgU for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E0211E80C2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9lABTT7lX+czD4xPN6oR8nKw/pVp6Dj@postini.com; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:36:18 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:33:04 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:33:03 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:33:03 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:33:00 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1IdpbYLmxAl6/BS8eTg111SjzAuABVUgpw Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:36:20 -0000 Juergen, Most of the networks with which I am familiar have a unique, homespun, conf= iguration model. These models differ from yours, and each other, in many wa= ys. One significant difference is that in many networks, the network element do= es not need to discover the configuration server. In some networks, the con= figuration server address and associated authentication information is prec= onfigured. In other networks, the configuration server calls the network el= ement. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:37 AM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: >=20 > > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge significantly > from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your > model is superior to the models used in those networks? >=20 > Can you provide details how they diverge significantly? This would help > a lot. >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Jun 14 00:53:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8EB21F85D1 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:53:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.114 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKrhHmdcLCpb for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1C521F854A for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:53:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFANKX2U+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABCA7U/gQeCGAEBAQEDAQEBDx4KNAsMAgICAQgNAQIBBAEBAQoGDAsBBgEaDB8JCAEBBAESCBqHaQudG5x9BIsugnGCQGADljOEZIoGgmI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,408,1336363200"; d="scan'208";a="13761030" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 03:51:16 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 03:35:32 -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 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:53:35 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1IdpbYLmxAl6/BS8eTg111SjzAuABVUgpwAA1mYpA= References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net><20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Ronald Bonica" , "Juergen Schoenwaelder" Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:53:42 -0000 Hi Ron, This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements and the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option discussed in the draft. =20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Ronald Bonica > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:33 AM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > Juergen, >=20 > Most of the networks with which I am familiar have a unique, homespun, > configuration model. These models differ from yours, and each other, in > many ways. >=20 > One significant difference is that in many networks, the network > element does not need to discover the configuration server. In some > networks, the configuration server address and associated > authentication information is preconfigured. In other networks, the > configuration server calls the network element. >=20 > Ron >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > > university.de] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:37 AM > > To: Ronald Bonica > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > > opsawg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > > configuration > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > > > > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge > significantly > > from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your > > model is superior to the models used in those networks? > > > > Can you provide details how they diverge significantly? This would > help > > a lot. > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Jun 14 01:23:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1F421F8673 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.337, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGNZcllaMEQH for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD7921F85D8 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so517251eek.31 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+NOGE/tQvJ9K78x8R2/TefEZLBfnPXm5Ms8GzvcXcws=; b=QtWFCBS66q+SavUM15W1iy8HRA3NjMnGxKYSEWssz/9Otb0QkAPF8DAKHH+eX4eVze 3iGfZAkvBTFHkiynJQjdheJXwjcSpa9D/uJd5ef4EQzgE+jH9doEPFfYlCaXB/QhGIDC q+5T1AWPD+Tb0XExtOjLwVwOJPQTmYMx8j/JUPg/7CUpEMS/It9ApS4wiztoqpa4byxR NqnxChrV2WX3hvL6tCaIh+zrjInLGLOGrLzxQYLLHlbGqpY1iig9nthZkDL67QzIO1pk cMZzN/q6pmZr3mvnBAUwen5CXL+j56pdHv5+IrU4uGwjwpGzBRkY8QSb+jDyBGNfqmRq CJhg== Received: by 10.14.98.136 with SMTP id v8mr194099eef.145.1339662226199; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.68] (host-2-102-216-85.as13285.net. [2.102.216.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5sm16417629eem.3.2012.06.14.01.23.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD99F8D.2090900@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:23:41 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org References: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:23:48 -0000 I think this draft should mention the distributed firewalls paper (https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/distfw.pdf) and discuss the role of "personal" firewalls. They are too widespread to be ignored. I also think it would be useful to be explicit about the problems caused by inconsistent firewall practices. For example, there is the somewhat random breakage of PMTUD due to some people blocking all ICMP, similarly random breakage of IPv6 transition due to some people blocking protocol 41, and so on. In the recommendations, it says > As further discussed in Section 2.1, firewalls of any type SHOULD NOT > attempt to perform the kind of deep packet inspection and surgery... In fact I don't think section 2.1 makes the downsides of this behaviour clear enough. There's a general presumption against innovation in the firewall world; for example it appears that a very well known device always discards packets containing shim6 extension headers. Some will remember that we had a big discussion in 6man about what firewalls might do to the IPv6 flow label. And so on. Firewalls are actually, IMHO, a bigger obstacle to innovation than NAT - at least we know roughly what a NAT does, but we have no idea in general what a firewall might choose to do. Inevitably, that forces designers to implement innovative ideas over HTTP - which just escalates the arms race with firewall designers. Regards Brian Carpenter From randy@psg.com Thu Jun 14 02:00:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6685F21F869C for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KEspLavYGCA5 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E507B21F8699 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Sf5v7-000CnW-Tw; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:00:50 +0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:00:49 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Dan Romascanu In-Reply-To: References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:00:52 -0000 > This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements and > the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP > deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the > configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option > discussed in the draft. and backbone networks don't. and ron's point was mileage varies greatly. i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale (though not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do not recognize them here. randy From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Jun 14 03:14:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A78F21F86A4 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id euLSM6ZR3x-H for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6CA21F869D for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:14:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABy52U+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFtTyBB4IYAQEBAQIBEh4KPwUHBAIBCA0EBAEBCwYMCwEGAUUJCAEBBBMIGodkBZ0LnQOLMoUxYAObF4oGgmI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,409,1336363200"; d="scan'208";a="310947669" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 06:12:49 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 05:56:20 -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 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:14:25 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1KDDTnpIXVJoz/RLSmDeuHd+ReTwACUxsQ References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net><20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local><13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Randy Bush" Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:14:31 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:01 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: opsawg > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > > This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements and > > the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP > > deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the > > configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option > > discussed in the draft. >=20 > and backbone networks don't. and ron's point was mileage varies > greatly. >=20 That was my point as well. Large IP networks does not mean that all devices are connected directly to the backbone. Configuring the addresses of configuration servers to be accessed by devices does not mean that they need (can, at reasonable costs) be individually configured in tens of thousands of new network devices.=20 > i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i > will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale (though > not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do not > recognize them here. >=20 >=20 I am not a co-author of this draft, but I recognize the model of using DHCP to find the configuration server and establishing a channel for secure configuration, as being used in some large scale deployments that I know. These are not service provider deployments, but large enterprise networks, as far as I understand the I-D also covers this use case.=20 Regards, Dan =20 From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Thu Jun 14 06:28:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9322D21F8645 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8k7N6NH0ltw for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6107621F8644 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so1322879lag.31 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=RvBWDrr0CQydZv76eO/XaCVMASW4NvpMyV4L+2WOx8s=; b=evY27lwYonbknWxTF7WBb0ayOuYZFfMgIxRcq8jTkYiKOx0MSoI9OaWIW1XjyKDLYg sqOs//CiTBgnERJ0q17rJNnj1VPy+FR1IQsgpuBwZe5oEzQ3DvFA1NePhlArkNPEmo1+ ManexbZxnU6/E0fE5G3iRe8M6Z/Ks9vW66CZbRi3X+B2yQ+rTQ6ysq53Bs4Kt+LtHz/G FQTlV/N4UmIq74S08Z33dC1rw92aOEZt9XZ41RbHngY+H9bCHoEPI7MwzshH5cAgCCj4 UvkKceoL9Kfj3E0m3pDTqobRUMst8nO4jWvgEDBtxZgmmA5/hPcKyz4rujSzNZig2beM +Fww== Received: by 10.112.45.4 with SMTP id i4mr1017155lbm.79.1339680487309; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-76-92.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.76.92]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fd1sm4481141lbb.7.2012.06.14.06.28.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FD9E6DF.9070500@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:27:59 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Bush References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120614-0, 14/06/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:28:09 -0000 I wrote the original draft out of my own head. The intention was to identify gaps that it might be worth following up on, but it was basically an analytical exercise done with input from my co-authors. My practical knowledge of operations dates back a bit, to my days as a circuit switching OAM planner at BNR and Nortel. The general structure of the document is still as I put it together. I readily admit that Juergen brings far more knowledge of the topic to the table than I do, and the document has benefited from his subsequent stewardship. On 14/06/2012 5:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements and >> the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP >> deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the >> configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option >> discussed in the draft. > > and backbone networks don't. and ron's point was mileage varies > greatly. > > i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i > will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale (though > not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do not > recognize them here. > > randy > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > . > From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Jun 14 07:37:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B223021F86B9 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ml4NszsF+D6 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2484821F86EA for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9n3CSbAtX8U7/ydZmiugCKOgtBLkDdP@postini.com; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:37:38 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:36:29 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:36:28 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:36:26 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:36:25 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1IdpbYLmxAl6/BS8eTg111SjzAuABVUgpwAA1mYpAADl7VkA== Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76E1B06B1@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net><20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:37:42 -0000 Exactly! This is why my first question was about the scope of the document?= Does it apply to ISP Cores? ISP Edge routers? CPE? Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:54 AM > To: Ronald Bonica; Juergen Schoenwaelder > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > Hi Ron, >=20 > This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements and > the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP deployments, > one of the most common models is that IP phones get the configuration > server information by DHCP - this is the second option discussed in the > draft. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Ronald Bonica > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 4:33 AM > > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder > > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > > opsawg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > > configuration > > > > Juergen, > > > > Most of the networks with which I am familiar have a unique, > homespun, > > configuration model. These models differ from yours, and each other, > in > > many ways. > > > > One significant difference is that in many networks, the network > > element does not need to discover the configuration server. In some > > networks, the configuration server address and associated > > authentication information is preconfigured. In other networks, the > > configuration server calls the network element. > > > > Ron > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > > > university.de] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:37 AM > > > To: Ronald Bonica > > > Cc: > draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > > > opsawg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: > draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > > > configuration > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > > > > > > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge > > significantly > > > from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your > > > model is superior to the models used in those networks? > > > > > > Can you provide details how they diverge significantly? This would > > help > > > a lot. > > > > > > /js > > > > > > -- > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, > Germany > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From fred@cisco.com Thu Jun 14 14:21:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A7E21F8491 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgBS8yIXuLg5 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5BD21F846D for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1746; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339708908; x=1340918508; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uPY7Y7zhju/EfiOoCsAQqXfsCyQAPbuD76GaIB865uU=; b=Qbm8LPQFxymyyUbyRwcBK8CM+KBJZsAH8QjMg0CAQ+n30eVEAH8KG99K vOT7OaAIJ4V/qe1VBOdbqKa1QPlxemSBjGKpSjX9j9JTxwU58LDfiSOP5 n/qaxYr2rnVPybbbfwtV2QJW7qE1LF1GEN/S1ChhaUm8QeJKBIgwBCaz/ w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAItV2k+rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABFFrUogQeCGAEBAQIBAQEBAQ8BJzQLBQsLRicwBhMih2QEDJl2oAkEizKFMWADiEGMYIVUiEKBZoMA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,773,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="46421886" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 21:21:48 +0000 Received: from Freds-Computer.local ([10.154.212.97]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5ELLBf8002833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:21:48 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:48 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Fred Baker In-Reply-To: <4FD99F8D.2090900@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:21:47 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20120612195331.26093.18247.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FD99F8D.2090900@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:21:50 -0000 Do you have text to suggest? On Jun 14, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think this draft should mention the distributed firewalls paper > (https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/distfw.pdf) and discuss > the role of "personal" firewalls. They are too widespread to be > ignored. > > I also think it would be useful to be explicit about the problems > caused by inconsistent firewall practices. For example, there is > the somewhat random breakage of PMTUD due to some people blocking > all ICMP, similarly random breakage of IPv6 transition due to some > people blocking protocol 41, and so on. > > In the recommendations, it says > >> As further discussed in Section 2.1, firewalls of any type SHOULD NOT >> attempt to perform the kind of deep packet inspection and surgery... > > In fact I don't think section 2.1 makes the downsides of this behaviour > clear enough. There's a general presumption against innovation in > the firewall world; for example it appears that a very well known > device always discards packets containing shim6 extension headers. > Some will remember that we had a big discussion in 6man about what > firewalls might do to the IPv6 flow label. And so on. Firewalls are > actually, IMHO, a bigger obstacle to innovation than NAT - at least > we know roughly what a NAT does, but we have no idea in general what > a firewall might choose to do. Inevitably, that forces designers > to implement innovative ideas over HTTP - which just escalates the > arms race with firewall designers. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From ningso@yahoo.com Sat Jun 16 13:52:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF97B21F846B for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.880, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jnYEg3iVhD43 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C40D21F8449 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.103] by nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2012 20:52:06 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.91] by tm8.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2012 20:52:06 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1028.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Jun 2012 20:52:06 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 585353.43962.bm@omp1028.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 84113 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jun 2012 20:52:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1339879926; bh=8Bo2BTVD/wp5Ma0AcL4VBZ6DqmXMnZaRn/0j4WdL5hE=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SmGotsDkCcznXGwH1Yqtr3qBwc9YKqqzRzjJi2IZ7Mu5jJLeOX33yVBP5o18BpXgT5IJKoF7WBWPHhW3y2AtvIZ6f9PAU3gFQuEVgWzhsB+U6372LUZUBDNLdG8ZtsP4JGdILBl/FABceUkymeHEkIR4CcDdfMmdFWY2jjJN7r0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tv9+vIPFyMG8ClbZ0Cncy2H4WEwN5ZKhEiqkdEvzfwpcJaQPF/dEX5ML7AaEdOulyu9xM7/eK8XcVLkaZYQesa1FdLugV7K67hixW/k73PxHAoQOGssDTDxb99gOA2vQbItkRdKY1SyMvLav/9kGsRBf80Ka32/S88i3ComsC74=; X-YMail-OSG: rpDxuh0VM1kuOWjidWa3cQyF4gR.6kcgNW7eu_LURPUytYu Ksl2ZqS2zjWObDhsObxenPEcqxu9uncHs.j5YMV1GPjzS6akeimnfCzcTcn0 dJZltAI9N9Obc9NO0YAtmkbB.helew7lGmu0kBBF_xl4Bu2mKNyUFI8M7vno vZ5GXs3S2Leq7SYozORUf4ujSLlb34syxXmcpNa.yXFMWz2pGjirOO7FQdJF Lubp1zmenX8cS8yXkcVh7inLoucKymhtAlwUKt5s90_MjQyVDhABmEslOAlx HzM1.P7Aq7HwQUpmCkk2Up5aJoOSsy5MaTLAwfdLWUBS1hBsGmNvbbSXpz9k k0K_JhyyUBtgEtRZUPX.yievRPzMoeDBItPeULvatRhSA61MfeuqrzIQBz03 J7fEI1NOS8VfA_QMd_wB.3vt_Xl01_2I9paDd6MMCsEKkD0QeIzpkEDSeGpm geqSMHsTqz9hrdDqh0t8nojmCVFCuwoCpUPqkh80F0MgIpIl2589tWMJrtOL DebKaOwSkyfbpIrOCrt9FC9KP2pRwpKzbXtN.K4DAbyo1 Received: from [173.57.97.155] by web84503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:52:05 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 Message-ID: <1339879925.38818.YahooMailNeo@web84503.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:52:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Ning So To: "opsawg@ietf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-861880492-996897819-1339879925=:38818" Subject: [OPSAWG] Monitoring and Performance Management Industry Panel X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ning So List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:52:10 -0000 ---861880492-996897819-1339879925=:38818 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All,=0A=0AJust want to make a quick announcement alert you to the formation= of Monitoring and Performance Management Industry Panel (not directly rela= ted to any SDO).=A0 This panel focuses on four areas:=0A=0A=A0=A0=A0 End-to= -End Performance Monitoring & Management=0A=A0=A0=A0 Application (or End-Us= er) Performance versus Network Performance=0A=A0=A0=A0 Relationship between= the OTT Provider and Infrastructure Provider=0A=A0=A0=A0 End Applications = and Performance Management=0A=0AAn on-line panel discussion will be held on= July 17.=A0 You can sign-up here: http://bit.ly/LknqIs.=0A=0AThere will al= so be a panel discussion under this initiative at NANOG in Dallas.=0A=0ANin= g ---861880492-996897819-1339879925=:38818 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

Just= want to make a quick announcement alert you to the formation of Monitoring= and Performance Manageme= nt Industry Panel (not directly related to any SDO).  This pane= l focuses on four areas:

    End-to-End Performance M= onitoring & Management
    Application (or End-User) = Performance versus Network Performance
    Relationship b= etween the OTT Provider and Infrastructure Provider
    E= nd Applications and Performance Management

An on-line panel discussi= on will be held on July 17.  You can sign-up here: http://bit.ly/LknqIs.

There will also be a panel discussion under this initiative at NANOG in Dallas.

Ning
---861880492-996897819-1339879925=:38818-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Mon Jun 18 08:37:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0B821F86C3 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jVdvpgGJNSpd for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B622F21F8704 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so8431540pbc.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-forwarded-message-id:content-type; bh=uMLzRPkX/aJm5gRwoep511Hj/qC1mhKpiukHUogrJ74=; b=DZTtbaXXqwHScNFd0HIg1X9lje08YLg4jUBeTIhOAJpKswrHLigrJehsSZbGXOWmm3 q8mqCfMFUPfIDl2n1L+q5a2y7nlHSRWF2S9sgOQ6byhPVfmj8EhKEkBYUsNf1nwy8iT3 tXV+4V2Lx7Ey66l/61TiNSgR9Vuda/NqPcrPO4xX8ZvhiyscHImwtZv2uNhNmnrDlwaU DF6pOM47ESGSLK3mdWHiDdaPgBEFWnlQq7rrH/jEbBeLD45EEWdBUMYfpo0NYQRLuMuV J3jWfcL9eyK0TYsoNkC38cnguiFNwBOwxc3dqB4Z2aTwFB8kMIib0xsOvwoxUnbEJpmt kj2w== Received: by 10.68.136.229 with SMTP id qd5mr54045982pbb.2.1340033866312; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-88-51-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.88.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ok6sm24255033pbb.29.2012.06.18.08.37.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FDF4B47.8070505@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:37:43 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E2012F0867@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E2012F0867@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E2012F0867@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070708030406080908060002" Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: [nvo3] NVO3 OAM requirements X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:37:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070708030406080908060002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Very likely to be of interest to some opsawg participants. Melinda -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 OAM requirements Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:13:43 +0000 From: AshwoodsmithPeter To: nvo3@ietf.org A few of us took a crack at OAM requirements for NVO3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-00 We appreciate your comments/feedback/contributions/flames etc. Peter --------------070708030406080908060002 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 --------------070708030406080908060002-- From rbonica@juniper.net Mon Jun 18 09:24:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442421F86DA for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:24:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pLJEQX9M1rY7 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803EC21F86D5 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT99WII19VkSMSzW/nFu0MHMxMj9QML/R@postini.com; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:24:05 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:21:46 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:21:28 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Tom Taylor , Randy Bush Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:21:27 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1KMZFsXZWI6u0ISFaXT7IhFdGVFgDPJ5mQ Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EB1DC56@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4FD9E6DF.9070500@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD9E6DF.9070500@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:24:09 -0000 Tom, Let me ask the question another way. Having read your draft, how would you = expect the community to behave differently? Would you expect them to develo= p something that they aren't already developing? Would you expect them to d= o something that they aren't already doing. The answer to this question defines the utility of the draft. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Taylor > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:28 AM > To: Randy Bush > Cc: opsawg > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > I wrote the original draft out of my own head. The intention was to > identify gaps that it might be worth following up on, but it was > basically an analytical exercise done with input from my co-authors. My > practical knowledge of operations dates back a bit, to my days as a > circuit switching OAM planner at BNR and Nortel. >=20 > The general structure of the document is still as I put it together. I > readily admit that Juergen brings far more knowledge of the topic to > the table than I do, and the document has benefited from his subsequent > stewardship. >=20 > On 14/06/2012 5:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements > and > >> the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP > >> deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the > >> configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option > >> discussed in the draft. > > > > and backbone networks don't. and ron's point was mileage varies > > greatly. > > > > i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i > > will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale > > (though not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do > > not recognize them here. > > > > randy > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Mon Jun 18 16:07:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F4211E80D2 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaAVQgdGTVW9 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D82711E80D5 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so5404198lbb.31 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=VZ4rSdYLUODrOl3uSW+ynHQAFyF7auHN/3lP2lbbyBQ=; b=y2qQi1spFPeMRUxUXGW8O8Fz/Qj5pDuyLNsMFUBjS7ED7jqQegYW+nlKG562KORsFV C6SeRlfgU7yAe9tAr4IrY50PdECTopl+qF/mUnQPjnsAGdTmMGuLq3HoE+QTUJh43I4B NXl6MrlKe0ylc0AqAd82ch711woS+1eDpdG4i8qmaIsVl34KRE87VvaZjOCri9rx0sf0 mxXmdqfbp4uVa0sR/cn23NALRZQawxBNVnb5wQseQLSn4/rxJYEBKxMM+Jt78RBzv5lc xUMIppbSTzc+dgdK2KRczoCW1Z5qT7J88LscRNsNN7uW49Gp85H/O2azfeakreIjOtu6 PIhQ== Received: by 10.112.86.166 with SMTP id q6mr7141925lbz.6.1340060864028; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-76-92.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.76.92]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hg4sm29786358lab.11.2012.06.18.16.07.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FDFB4B4.6010506@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:07:32 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bonica References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4FD9E6DF.9070500@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EB1DC56@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EB1DC56@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120618-1, 18/06/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:07:46 -0000 I certainly never contemplated getting operators to do things differently -- just hoped to make sure they had the tools they needed if they chose to use them Tom On 18/06/2012 12:21 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Tom, > > Let me ask the question another way. Having read your draft, how would you expect the community to behave differently? Would you expect them to develop something that they aren't already developing? Would you expect them to do something that they aren't already doing. > > The answer to this question defines the utility of the draft. > > Ron > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Tom Taylor >> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:28 AM >> To: Randy Bush >> Cc: opsawg >> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- >> configuration >> >> I wrote the original draft out of my own head. The intention was to >> identify gaps that it might be worth following up on, but it was >> basically an analytical exercise done with input from my co-authors. My >> practical knowledge of operations dates back a bit, to my days as a >> circuit switching OAM planner at BNR and Nortel. >> >> The general structure of the document is still as I put it together. I >> readily admit that Juergen brings far more knowledge of the topic to >> the table than I do, and the document has benefited from his subsequent >> stewardship. >> >> On 14/06/2012 5:00 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >>>> This depends I guess, also, upon the type of the network elements >> and >>>> the deployment environment. For example in enterprise VoIP >>>> deployments, one of the most common models is that IP phones get the >>>> configuration server information by DHCP - this is the second option >>>> discussed in the draft. >>> >>> and backbone networks don't. and ron's point was mileage varies >>> greatly. >>> >>> i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i >>> will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale >>> (though not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do >>> not recognize them here. >>> >>> randy >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> OPSAWG@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >>> . >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 18 16:12:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D31711E80D5 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9iNgr4BTRxTf for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB76A11E80A0 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Sgl76-0003WQ-S3; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:12:05 +0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:12:03 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Tom Taylor In-Reply-To: <4FDFB4B4.6010506@gmail.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4FD9E6DF.9070500@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EB1DC56@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4FDFB4B4.6010506@gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:12:06 -0000 hi tom > I certainly never contemplated getting operators to do things > differently -- just hoped to make sure they had the tools they needed > if they chose to use them the downside with this well-intentioned inventive approach is code bloat and bugs. otoh, bright ideas that ops really will use are worth it. it's a balance and trade-off. randy From talmi@marvell.com Tue Jun 19 01:23:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3FE21F8629; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hC2dtiJ5IjWc; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from galiil.marvell.com (galiil.marvell.com [199.203.130.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F2C21F85C5; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:23:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Tal Mizrahi To: AshwoodsmithPeter , "nvo3@ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:23:31 +0300 Thread-Topic: NVO3 OAM requirements Thread-Index: Ac1NXJD/+jk03XxOTDebkeRpNT2g0QAl94PQ Message-ID: <74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F85E406F@IL-MB01.marvell.com> References: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E2012F0867@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <7AE6A4247B044C4ABE0A5B6BF427F8E2012F0867@dfweml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F85E406FILMB01marve_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] NVO3 OAM requirements X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:23:40 -0000 --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F85E406FILMB01marve_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, A general comment: The terminology in this document is not always aligned with other OAM work = done in the IETF (or in the IEEE). I understand it aims at aligning to RFC6= 136, but still the terminology is not aligned to other IETF work. For example, I could not find any mentions of basic terms like "connectivit= y verification", "continuity check", "maintenance point". The terms "fault" and "failure" are used intermittently although they typic= ally have different meanings in the context of OAM. I would suggest to align the terminology to existing IETF RFCs/drafts, e.g.= : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6371 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis Two edits/typo fixes: Section 1.3 " [Y.1731] ITU-T Std. Y.1731. This document is expected to provide a subset of the requirements for NVO3 at the Tenant level." =3D=3D>A semantic note: Y.1730 defines REQUIREMENTS, while = Y.1731 defines mechanisms. Section 8.2 - [IEEE802.1ah] =3D=3D> this reference is not mentioned in the = document - how is 802.1ah related to this draft? Did you mean 802.3ah (EFM)= ? Tal. From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ash= woodsmithPeter Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:14 PM To: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 OAM requirements A few of us took a crack at OAM requirements for NVO3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-00 We appreciate your comments/feedback/contributions/flames etc. Peter --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F85E406FILMB01marve_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Peter,=

 <= /p>

A general comment:

The terminology in this document is not always ali= gned with other OAM work done in the IETF (or in the IEEE). I understand it= aims at aligning to RFC6136, but still the terminology is not aligned to o= ther IETF work.

For exampl= e, I could not find any mentions of basic terms like "connectivity ver= ification", "continuity check", "maintenance point"= ;.

The terms "fault&= quot; and "failure" are used intermittently although they typical= ly have different meanings in the context of OAM.

 

I would suggest to align the terminology to existing IETF RFCs/drafts,= e.g.:

http://tools.ietf.o= rg/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6371

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-ana= lysis

 

 

Two edits/typo fixes:

Section 1.3 " [Y.1731] ITU-T Std. Y.1731. This document i= s expected to

  =             provide = a subset of the requirements for NVO3 at the Tenant

        &= nbsp;     level."

         &nbs= p;      =3D=3D>A semantic note: Y.1730 defines = REQUIREMENTS, while Y.1731 defines mechanisms.     = ; 

 =

Section 8.2 - [IEEE802.1ah] =3D=3D&g= t; this reference is not mentioned in the document - how is 802.1ah related= to this draft? Did you mean 802.3ah (EFM)?

 

T= al.

<= b>From:<= /span> nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of AshwoodsmithPeter
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:14 PM
To:<= /b> nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 OAM requirements

 

A few of us took a crack at OAM requirements for NVO3.

 

https:/= /tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-00=

 

We app= reciate your comments/feedback/contributions/flames etc.<= /p>

 

Peter

 

= --_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F85E406FILMB01marve_-- From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 04:36:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6046121F84D6 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PAQewVuGyQct for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A6D21F84CF for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577AD20C0E; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:36:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1zFmO4919_K1; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:36:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC22620BFC; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:36:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E1870201D860; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:35:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:35:59 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:36:05 -0000 On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Authors, > > I'm sorry that you had to wait so long to get this document through WG Last Call. In order to compensate, I started my AD review a bit early. The following are a few questions: Here is _my_ answer to your questions. 1) What is the scope of your document? Does it apply to routers in an ISP core? ISP edge? Enterprise edge? I think the document is not specific to certain types of equipment. That said, it likely has wider applicability to devices that are deployed at the network edges rather than the core and perhaps likely more to cellular network and enterprise network gear. At least some of the examples discussed on the list were coming from those environments. 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge significantly from the model presented in your draft. Is there a reason why your model is superior to the models used in those networks? The scope of this questions remains unclear to me. Part of that is that people only say "significantly different", detailing things with homebrewed magic. Another part is that the document does not detail a specific model either, so I am not even sure what the question targets. If model means the five phases introduced in section 3 and further detailed in subsequent sections, then I believe these phases are indeed happening in the real world (perhaps sometimes a phase is skipped). This model was introduced in an attempt to untangle things into something that allows a more organized discussion. 3) What is the purpose of this document? Please comment on the following possible motivations: - to provide guidance to those who have not already experienced success in the area of automated configuration Yes. I think this document is relevant for (a) network operators (in the generic sense) who decide to roll out lots of new devices and who think about how to implement things and (b) network equipment vendors who like to add features to their products that make the roll out of lots of new devices simpler. - to convert networks that have already experienced success to the model that you describe I guess this is of little relevance - if you have solved this problem and you are happy, you likely don't care or even do not want to talk how you do it (as we have seen on the list). - to motivate the work described in Section 9 I would say identify the work. Whether these things should be acted on is a different question that depends on available resources and the chances to be successful in the market place. But I think it is useful to be aware what uncovered spots are. - other General information to people interested in such questions for whatever reason. 4) In Section 9, do we really need three different ways to locate the configuration server? Couldn't we avoid all of this work by pre-configuring everything that the device needs to identify and contact the configuration server? (Many networks do this today.) Apparently, some devices use DHCP today for this purpose. DNS SRV records have seen some usage for service discovery, in particular in combination with mDNS. SLP is mentioned more for completeness since it is an IETF standard designed for service discovery. Again, the list _identifies_ gaps, it does not intend to say they all should be addressed. 5) Is G6 really a gap? Are you suggesting that we build security mechanisms into every network management protocol that lacks them? Or should we just avoid those protocols? There once was a whole BOF on this topic. I do not want to rehash this here but as far as I can tell this is a problem where some vendors have work arounds that however never made any progress in the IETF, see [I-D.kwatsen-reverse-ssh] for example. The lack of any call-home standard affects unfortunatly quite a few of the IETF's management protocols. Anyway, once again, the list _identifies_ gaps, whether the IETF will act on them is another discussion. 6) Who is the intended audience for this draft? What behavior change do you expect from the intended audience? I guess this already partially answered in question 3). I think this document is primarily relevant for (a) network operators (in the generic sense) who decide to roll out lots of new devices and who think about how to implement things and (b) network equipment vendors who like to add features to their products that make the roll out of lots of new devices simpler. The document tries to give guidance and informs about trade-offs between different approaches. I am not sure about behavior change. As said before, if a network operator has a working solution, he likely won't change. If a network operator has a solution and is unhappy with it, he might try alternatives. But I think that prime audience is network operators and equipment vendors that do not have a lot of experience with the roll out of large numbers of devices. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 04:38:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ADB21F85FC for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1z9qx5ymssgj for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5076421F85F1 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76B520C09; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:38:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caYS_3wFs9S5; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:38:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F7620BFC; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:38:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2EB42201D8C6; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:38:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:38:20 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120621113820.GB81126@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:38:22 -0000 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 09:33:00PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Juergen, > > Most of the networks with which I am familiar have a unique, homespun, configuration model. These models differ from yours, and each other, in many ways. > > One significant difference is that in many networks, the network element does not need to discover the configuration server. In some networks, the configuration server address and associated authentication information is preconfigured. In other networks, the configuration server calls the network element. > Please note that pre-configuration is actually discussed as one of the mechanisms in the document. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 04:51:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26BF21F8608 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:51:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wn6-r9rqsIwD for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:51:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBCC21F8604 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:51:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2418F20C0D; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wgwt98B86AHs; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8860E20BFC; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 280C0201D982; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:51:41 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Randy Bush Message-ID: <20120621115141.GC81126@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Randy Bush , Dan Romascanu , opsawg References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120612083705.GA70079@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CEAF141@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:51:44 -0000 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 06:00:49PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > i ask again, is there operational experience with this draft? and i > will be less subtle. i know the internals of a few large scale (though > not wireless) service provider automation systems, and i do not > recognize them here. > Yes. The I-D discusses several options and some of them surely have been widely used, others I am less aware of their usage (but as you know, it is generally hard to establish usage of something). Some examples might help you: a) TR69 is as far as I know widely used by CPE to obtain the address of the so called Auto-Configuration Server. This is mentioned on page 3. b) There was text added concerning pre-configuration provided by pluggable memory cards or nearfield communication due to a contribution to the mailing list that devices of a major vendor do this (section 4). c) DHCP seems widely used for IP address acquisition (section 5.2). d) Christopher Liljenstolpe suggested in one of his reviews to add text about anycasts. Before adding text, I specifically asked on the mailing list whether this is done and there were contributions saying that this is the case (section 5.3). e) It seems UUIDs have proven useful to identify devices (section 5.4). f) I think there is evidence that several of the protocols mentioned in section 6 have been used to move configurations around. I could probably go on for a while. Perhaps I do not understand of "operational experience with this draft" means. This is an informational document, outlining options available, discussing trade-offs, identifying gaps. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Jun 21 06:43:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AAF21F855B for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zp6Sd7U0Djx6 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:43:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBD821F861F for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+Mk2FCjZiumGmaCZwRb87ORhbmyknkT@postini.com; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:43:00 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:41:28 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:41:27 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:41:19 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:41:18 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1Pog05KHXLIl8yRaqWpxdELaeI4QAEWa4A Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:43:01 -0000 Juergen, Let me ask the question another way. Having read your draft, how would you = expect the community to behave differently? Would you expect them to develo= p something that they aren't already developing? Would you expect them to d= o something that they aren't already doing. The answer to this question defines the utility of the draft. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:36 AM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:39:12PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > Authors, > > > > I'm sorry that you had to wait so long to get this document through > WG Last Call. In order to compensate, I started my AD review a bit > early. The following are a few questions: >=20 > Here is _my_ answer to your questions. >=20 > 1) What is the scope of your document? Does it apply to routers > in an ISP core? ISP edge? Enterprise edge? >=20 > I think the document is not specific to certain types of > equipment. That said, it likely has wider applicability to > devices that are deployed at the network edges rather than the > core and perhaps likely more to cellular network and > enterprise network gear. At least some of the examples > discussed on the list were coming from those environments. >=20 > 2) Many networks automate configuration in ways diverge > significantly from the model presented in your draft. Is there > a reason why your model is superior to the models used in > those networks? >=20 > The scope of this questions remains unclear to me. Part of > that is that people only say "significantly different", > detailing things with homebrewed magic. Another part is that > the document does not detail a specific model either, so I am > not even sure what the question targets. If model means the > five phases introduced in section 3 and further detailed in > subsequent sections, then I believe these phases are indeed > happening in the real world (perhaps sometimes a phase is > skipped). This model was introduced in an attempt to untangle > things into something that allows a more organized discussion. >=20 > 3) What is the purpose of this document? Please comment on the > following > possible motivations: >=20 > - to provide guidance to those who have not already > experienced success in the area of automated configuration >=20 > Yes. I think this document is relevant for (a) network > operators (in the generic sense) who decide to roll out lots > of new devices and who think about how to implement things > and (b) network equipment vendors who like to add features to > their products that make the roll out of lots of new devices > simpler. >=20 > - to convert networks that have already experienced success to > the model that you describe >=20 > I guess this is of little relevance - if you have solved this > problem and you are happy, you likely don't care or even do > not want to talk how you do it (as we have seen on the list). >=20 > - to motivate the work described in Section 9 >=20 > I would say identify the work. Whether these things should be > acted on is a different question that depends on available > resources and the chances to be successful in the market place. > But I think it is useful to be aware what uncovered spots are. >=20 > - other >=20 > General information to people interested in such questions for > whatever reason. >=20 > 4) In Section 9, do we really need three different ways to locate > the configuration server? Couldn't we avoid all of this work > by pre-configuring everything that the device needs to > identify and contact the configuration server? (Many networks > do this today.) >=20 > Apparently, some devices use DHCP today for this purpose. DNS > SRV records have seen some usage for service discovery, in > particular in combination with mDNS. SLP is mentioned more for > completeness since it is an IETF standard designed for service > discovery. Again, the list _identifies_ gaps, it does not > intend to say they all should be addressed. >=20 > 5) Is G6 really a gap? Are you suggesting that we build security > mechanisms into every network management protocol that lacks > them? Or should we just avoid those protocols? >=20 > There once was a whole BOF on this topic. I do not want to > rehash this here but as far as I can tell this is a problem > where some vendors have work arounds that however never made > any progress in the IETF, see [I-D.kwatsen-reverse-ssh] for > example. The lack of any call-home standard affects > unfortunatly quite a few of the IETF's management protocols. > Anyway, once again, the list _identifies_ gaps, whether the > IETF will act on them is another discussion. >=20 > 6) Who is the intended audience for this draft? What behavior > change do you expect from the intended audience? >=20 > I guess this already partially answered in question 3). I > think this document is primarily relevant for (a) network > operators (in the generic sense) who decide to roll out lots > of new devices and who think about how to implement things > and (b) network equipment vendors who like to add features to > their products that make the roll out of lots of new devices > simpler. The document tries to give guidance and informs about > trade-offs between different approaches. >=20 > I am not sure about behavior change. As said before, if a > network operator has a working solution, he likely won't > change. If a network operator has a solution and is unhappy > with it, he might try alternatives. But I think that prime > audience is network operators and equipment vendors that do > not have a lot of experience with the roll out of large > numbers of devices. >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 07:49:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFF721F8707 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:49:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnwNWBpbR8cQ for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC5D21F867C for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D265A20C03; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tl0rRfnvSHuh; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7130820979; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 538A1201E03B; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:49:40 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:49:42 -0000 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:41:18AM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Juergen, > > Let me ask the question another way. Having read your draft, how would you expect the community to behave differently? Would you expect them to develop something that they aren't already developing? Would you expect them to do something that they aren't already doing. > > The answer to this question defines the utility of the draft. What is "the community"? I have at least three options: a) community = IETF: I do not know whether the IETF wants to act on any of the identified gaps. I might have a personal opinion but that is not important I guess. The goal was to identify the gaps - are you saying that only makes sense if there is a defined action following? I do not think this is necessarily coupled - it can be fine to know there are certain gaps and to have reasons to do nothing about them. b) community = vendor: A vendor planning to support large rollouts in their products and who reads this document hopefully have a more complete picture of the options out there. Hard to tell to what extend that changes their decisions. c) community = operator: An operator planning to do large rollouts who has read the I-D hopefully has a more complete picture of the options out there. Hard to tell to what extend that changes their decisions. Probably the utility is simply 42 (in the sense that I do not really know what the AD is asking or how he likes to measure the utility of such informational documents). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Jun 21 11:17:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D528A21F875A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oLjH0mxKBiRx for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46A221F8672 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+NlJtqAFzlCLgwdn0jd5hnofHY5cG7G@postini.com; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:17:19 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:16:33 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:15:43 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:13:08 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration Thread-Index: Ac1PvRpuUaCQIX2QQgSgUkHb3Ovs+AAG3W8Q Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE66B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:17:21 -0000 Juergen, When I read your draft, I assumed that you were addressing the operator com= munity? Was that not the case? As a result, when I referred to "the communi= ty", I had the operator community in mind. So, I will ask my question yet another way. Assume that the operator of a l= arge network reads your draft. Although this operator has years of experien= ce with large-scale rollouts, he doesn't see his own procedures in your doc= ument. Should he consider changing his procedures? If so, why? Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:50 AM > To: Ronald Bonica > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network- > configuration >=20 > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:41:18AM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > > Juergen, > > > > Let me ask the question another way. Having read your draft, how > would you expect the community to behave differently? Would you expect > them to develop something that they aren't already developing? Would > you expect them to do something that they aren't already doing. > > > > The answer to this question defines the utility of the draft. >=20 > What is "the community"? I have at least three options: >=20 > a) community =3D IETF: I do not know whether the IETF wants to act on > any of the identified gaps. I might have a personal opinion but > that is not important I guess. The goal was to identify the gaps - > are you saying that only makes sense if there is a defined action > following? I do not think this is necessarily coupled - it can be > fine to know there are certain gaps and to have reasons to do > nothing about them. >=20 > b) community =3D vendor: A vendor planning to support large rollouts in > their products and who reads this document hopefully have a more > complete picture of the options out there. Hard to tell to what > extend that changes their decisions. >=20 > c) community =3D operator: An operator planning to do large rollouts who > has read the I-D hopefully has a more complete picture of the > options out there. Hard to tell to what extend that changes their > decisions. >=20 > Probably the utility is simply 42 (in the sense that I do not really > know what the AD is asking or how he likes to measure the utility of > such informational documents). >=20 > /js >=20 > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 13:09:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D1921F85A1 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.193 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eyvmpxdpjONe for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E124421F8585 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95B720BE0; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:09:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wfd4AE947J31; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:09:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC3C20BE4; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:09:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 58CE5201E67E; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:09:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:09:00 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Ronald Bonica Message-ID: <20120621200859.GB82704@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Bonica , "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE66B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE66B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration@tools.ietf.org" , "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:09:04 -0000 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 02:13:08PM -0400, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Juergen, > > When I read your draft, I assumed that you were addressing the operator community? Was that not the case? As a result, when I referred to "the community", I had the operator community in mind. > > So, I will ask my question yet another way. Assume that the operator of a large network reads your draft. Although this operator has years of experience with large-scale rollouts, he doesn't see his own procedures in your document. Should he consider changing his procedures? If so, why? > As said before, an operator who has a well working procedure and he does not read anything that causes him to change his judgement of his working procedure likely won't change, why should he? We all know "never change a working system without a good reason". I do not see how any of this is related to the question whether he sees his procedure covered in the document or not, which is one of the assertions in your statement. Frankly, I remain puzzled what the secret procedures are that are not covered. But since they are secret, I likely will never know. But then, someone running a secrect procedure can't really be surprised that his procedure is not covered. He likely should be happy that it is not covered - so it remains a secret. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From melinda.shore@gmail.com Thu Jun 21 14:12:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563EE21F855A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gH5BFVoZh5Fv for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798D21F84E1 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1453316dac.31 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7K9qlaisoffjqF97n5/iguuLlvbDUW+1yXhtSbIsrUM=; b=gTNLLZOyYA9h2xaC3syuA0YU3zHB7ap1PlImjg4KL9RZ+BYCKxyd6YNYStSSvl9bBB omussuCXrvoRnUCO/fpzBaEVy5djHNi4QCFTBdL1P1mQ7BxiTttn9V5251kYeQ/1jtqW tZAz37llPx00yygl6/FipFicSdaATJTArHjAh+E5cXpjRR3bDBkYkvktDyqD/vg8TvmX NpMhseuQYC3bjfYFn7H6KK1oW3UsyKzUJM7MZVdUwdRiDrHzpTcZ+n3fR6BTme22Vsoa 4HDMF1BWe9VEfbcIVWfLjE0FypzD4cbk31EqWd29PGC3U1Wr+8XcwEV4ZbjKu62BMSkj pGGQ== Received: by 10.68.241.227 with SMTP id wl3mr2335544pbc.89.1340313134746; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (216-67-47-144-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.47.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nh6sm35265251pbc.44.2012.06.21.14.12.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FE38E2C.2050903@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:12:12 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:12:18 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:12:18 -0000 On 6/21/12 6:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Probably the utility is simply 42 (in the sense that I do not really > know what the AD is asking or how he likes to measure the utility of > such informational documents). It seems to me that you and Ron may be talking past one another to a certain extent. One of the things that's really popped out is that this model is not at all uncommon in voice and telecomm environments, and the document doesn't really stress that, while it also doesn't bring out very clearly that this model is not applicable to things like CPE environments, etc. I think Ron's question is this: if I'm running an environment to which this document is not applicable, what would I think when I read the document? Is it clear that it is *not* intended to apply to me? Melinda From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Jun 21 22:05:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6343621F85E5 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.195 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vqtHHqrGdcCN for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D16921F85E4 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C8820C02; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:05:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SSph0gKynp1i; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5E720BFA; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id A3FD2201EA18; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:05:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:05:25 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Melinda Shore Message-ID: <20120622050525.GA83617@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Melinda Shore , opsawg@ietf.org References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> <4FE38E2C.2050903@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FE38E2C.2050903@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 05:05:29 -0000 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:12:12PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 6/21/12 6:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >Probably the utility is simply 42 (in the sense that I do not really > >know what the AD is asking or how he likes to measure the utility of > >such informational documents). > > It seems to me that you and Ron may be talking past one another > to a certain extent. One of the things that's really popped out > is that this model is not at all uncommon in voice and telecomm > environments, and the document doesn't really stress that, while > it also doesn't bring out very clearly that this model is not > applicable to things like CPE environments, etc. Yes, it is likely we talk past each other. What is "this model" you are talking about? Can you be more concrete? > I think Ron's question is this: if I'm running an environment to > which this document is not applicable, what would I think when I > read the document? Is it clear that it is *not* intended to apply > to me? This assumes that the document is intended to apply to some scenarios but not to other scenarios. So far I have see statements that there are secred homegrown mechanism not covered in the document. I do not know what they are so I can't tell whether that is related to identifiable environments or certain types of businesses or something else. Are people looking for a disclaimer such as: Network operators executing procedures in certain environments that are not covered in this document and that work well for them may choose to continue using their working procedures. Isn't that obvious? Does this not at the end apply to all informational RFCs (and many other RFCs) as well? My feeling is that I still have not understood what the concern is. I am sorry for that. If someone else on the list can help resolving this, this would be very much appreciated. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From ietfc@btconnect.com Fri Jun 22 08:46:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9D421F875A for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.132 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.467, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eppz79uPE+Ee for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A86921F873A for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail115-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.248) by TX2EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.9.40.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:10 +0000 Received: from mail115-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail115-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087E33803F7; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.224.141; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0702HT004.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -25 X-BigFish: PS-25(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542M1432Izz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839hd24hf0ah304l) Received: from mail115-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail115-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1340379907798807_12749; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.235]) by mail115-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF867200044; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3PRD0702HT004.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.55.224.141) by TX2EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (10.9.99.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:45:04 +0000 Received: from AMXPRD0510HT002.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.248.181) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.3.4.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.15.86.1; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:46:26 +0000 Message-ID: <045001cd508d$b36405e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , Melinda Shore References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76CC424EE@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net><20120621113557.GA81126@elstar.local><13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76EDCE048@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net><20120621144940.GF81280@elstar.local> <4FE38E2C.2050903@gmail.com> <20120622050525.GA83617@elstar.local> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:42:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.248.181] X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:46:41 -0000 ---- Original Message ----- From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" To: "Melinda Shore" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:05 AM > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:12:12PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > > On 6/21/12 6:49 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > >Probably the utility is simply 42 (in the sense that I do not really > > >know what the AD is asking or how he likes to measure the utility of > > >such informational documents). > > > > It seems to me that you and Ron may be talking past one another > > to a certain extent. One of the things that's really popped out > > is that this model is not at all uncommon in voice and telecomm > > environments, and the document doesn't really stress that, while > > it also doesn't bring out very clearly that this model is not > > applicable to things like CPE environments, etc. > > Yes, it is likely we talk past each other. What is "this model" > you are talking about? Can you be more concrete? Juergen I do see a particular model here, of downloading a configuration file over a secure channel from a configuration server, all very Netconf-y or SNMP-y. There is a different model, which I see more often, of copying an image to a disk, the image containing all the software and configuration together. Sometimes this is done from a CD on site, but it can also be done over a suitably fast network. It has something in common with what you describe, but then so does almost any application that sets up a secure channel and transfers information:-) Configuring is different and reading the I-D I am left feeling that this is missing, even if I find it harder to say just why that is so. I remember the advent of PCs with organisations being told with 100 PCs you will not care how you configure, but when you have tens of thousands, then not automating could destroy your business. What technology was used was irrelevant, it just had to be automated to the point where the cost to the business was bearable, and in those days, most businesses had not realised how expensive configuring devices on an individual basis was. That is common to all networks. Equally, the cost of configuration changes can damage a business and so may need to be eliminated, or cut to the bone. Tom Petch > > > I think Ron's question is this: if I'm running an environment to > > which this document is not applicable, what would I think when I > > read the document? Is it clear that it is *not* intended to apply > > to me? > > This assumes that the document is intended to apply to some scenarios > but not to other scenarios. So far I have see statements that there > are secred homegrown mechanism not covered in the document. I do not > know what they are so I can't tell whether that is related to > identifiable environments or certain types of businesses or something > else. Are people looking for a disclaimer such as: > > Network operators executing procedures in certain environments that > are not covered in this document and that work well for them may > choose to continue using their working procedures. > > Isn't that obvious? Does this not at the end apply to all > informational RFCs (and many other RFCs) as well? > > My feeling is that I still have not understood what the concern is. > I am sorry for that. If someone else on the list can help resolving > this, this would be very much appreciated. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > From melinda.shore@gmail.com Thu Jun 28 13:14:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06CE11E80AE for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nnmtmD6dJ4rg for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA6E11E80A5 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so3619473pbc.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JQx3eG2j15hioeLkGa+mBprvU5FqSxTq9GXN98npLwQ=; b=K1WpcFeCP4yOOkM+nvctDyG0uQYZ8uEU1a0lsN1ZFSoV/AZ7X7uw2Y2wRrsGZkPI+G +YT0WbO5sOUKNNJb7NN/fSfBHeQ0V/XK3VruzBvZT5FPsdqSaCgJO1gt3hEQ5V5I3KEP aVvge1PSlGyyXfc7on4OWLe3g6WBOz5JxotHorKRf8bVDbjoRsaBOd5wXm8COGvT6IfD Va6vbvoEtJOiIRr+bOL7M0fiUTilQ1kFhzx1IaPL92l2P4zAsvvyR3PU+H4KNAMG2OQL 4MWo7P6CwBh3fkotnMT3qEyPgM0+0xvdxBxyhfVQMTl69tIgpiNqMKum7MnVRwYAM37K 2sEg== Received: by 10.68.240.73 with SMTP id vy9mr10717718pbc.102.1340914450870; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-81-117-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ux8sm3056051pbc.5.2012.06.28.13.14.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FECBB10.9040006@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:14:08 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] opsawg session has been scheduled X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:14:12 -0000 We've just gotten word that we've been scheduled to meet on Wednesday, 1 August from 1pm to 3pm. Melinda From vumip1@gmail.com Sat Jun 30 05:03:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EA821F8534; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4Lb5CssnqOz; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241EF21F84BD; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibhm11 with SMTP id hm11so1467055wib.13 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1RYK6wS5MOQQ93qzPe3dXDQD85JwB7hEjpDTf8E0Spw=; b=ET0v8QuQK92JEplt0rDLL9kAzki39EmZ+K+juFmtskcafs7LAqCosCqPMf7pv4i0bD cN3H2mOrjUhlvr7FLcktTtxzQnKh46FT4rYSNUrx3OVkoaDYCSbtgIxxL6sXxVY1vgeG wBU1BNDs6YDQoKpJzSypwpa6u4n9BADWAXWaX4uGKVYscv7AxTDvqViwovHfl+sauXsk P8+HcQT2DeDtbniQ1AtG/l7EdXEgpDbe9gFJG06ub0Xea4+/clPU/S0x6ledvUgiGaZf dRSM5qKmxeH821RyDSpBkeWnwkIiO5jizXTupIkquOufmK3IxSJOzIa7hRZsL+clv534 ZBSQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.212.1 with SMTP id x1mr2530209weo.143.1341057791724; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.13.79 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:03:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: Bhumip Khasnabish To: dc@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db2c1f4c8cf904c3af5953 Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: updated Virtual Machine Mobility and Interconnection (VMMI) draft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:03:32 -0000 --0016e6db2c1f4c8cf904c3af5953 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, We recently updated and published the Virtual Machine Mobility and Interconnection (VMMI) draft. It discusses the requirements for mobility and interconnection of virtual machine and virtual network elements. Many thanks to those who commented on the *earlier* version (draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00). We look forward to your further review and comments. Best. Bhumip ============================================================================== - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org - *Subject*: I-D Action: draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01.txt - *From*: internet-drafts at ietf.org - *Date*: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:13:01 -0700 - *Delivered-to*: i-d-announce at ietfa.amsl.com - *List-archive*: - *List-help*: > - *List-id*: Internet Draft Announcements only - *List-post*: > - *List-subscribe*: , > - *List-unsubscribe*: , > - *Reply-to*: internet-drafts at ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Requirements for Mobility and Interconnection of Virtual Machine and Virtual Network Elements Author(s) : Bhumip Khasnabish Bin Liu Baohua Lei Feng Wang Filename : draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2012-06-28 Abstract: In this draft, we discuss the challenges and requirements related to migration, mobility, and interconnection of Virtual Machines (VMs)and Virtual Network Elements (VNEs). We also describe the limitations of various types of virtual local area networking (VLAN) and virtual private networking (VPN) techniques that are traditionally expected to support such migration, mobility, and interconnections. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ============================================================================== --0016e6db2c1f4c8cf904c3af5953 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
=A0
We recently updated and published the Virtual = Machine Mobility and Interconnection (VMMI) draft.
It discusses the requirements for mobility and= interconnection of virtual machine
and virtual network elements.
=A0
Many thanks to those who commented on the <= em>earlier version (draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00).
=A0
We look forward to your further review and com= ments.
Best.
=A0
Bhumip

=A0=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts dir= ectories.


Title=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : Requirements for= Mobility and Interconnection of Virtual Machine and Virtual Network Elemen= ts
Author(s)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : Bhumip Khasnabish
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= Bin Liu
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 Baohua Lei
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Feng Wang
Filename=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : dr= aft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01.txt
Pages=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = : 36
Date=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 : 2012-06-28

Abstract:
=A0=A0 In this draft, we discuss the challenges and requir= ements related to
=A0=A0 migration, mobility, and interconnection of Vir= tual Machines (VMs)and
=A0=A0 Virtual Network Elements (VNEs).=A0 We als= o describe the limitations of
=A0=A0 various types of virtual local area networking (VLAN) and virtual=A0=A0 private networking (VPN) techniques that are traditionally expected=
=A0=A0 to support such migration, mobility, and interconnections.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khasnabish-vmmi-pr= oblems

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01=

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-01


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.or= g/internet-drafts/

=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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--0016e6db2c1f4c8cf904c3af5953--