[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Modest Proposal; was NIM BoF Minutes



Tom & All - I agree that such an effort needs to be undertaken. In the
International Softswitch Consortium's Architecture Working Group we are
also wresteling with a similar problem. 

I have one question. Whay has UML not been mentioned as a modeling
language?

Fred Seigneur

Tom Scott wrote:
> 
> Andrea, Walter, and other Friends of Comprehensive Unified
> Modeling:
> 
> * A comprehensive model, be it NIM or something else, is
> inevitable. It would be better if it happens now rather than
> later.
> 
> * Would a comprehensive model contribute to or reduce the
> Tower of Babel syndrome? The process of developing it will
> do nothing but help. Forcing everyone to use it before the
> conceptual bugs are eliminated through simulations and field
> tests, would cause confusion. So let's at least get started
> on it now. I'm confident we can handle the deployment issues
> when the time comes.
> 
> * But get started on what? what is the scope? Although it
> would make life easier, not to mention more profitable, for
> software designers and programmers to (re)use the same
> objects (er, classes) for SS7/IN/TINA stacks as well as IP
> stacks, the scope of a proposed IETF model can be limited
> justifiably to the Internet. But that in itself is enormous
> in comparison to what we have now, namely, the Tower of
> Babel bandaged together by SNMP, SMI, MIBs and PIBs and god
> knows what else. I don't mean to be negatively critical
> about SNMP or its keepers. They've done a splendid job. But
> the time has come for a more comprehensive perspective.
> 
> * Are we dealing with an information model or a data model?
> Is the model a network model or something else? Is it
> concerned with management or services or protocol
> development? I suggest: All of the above and more. Toward
> that end, I offer Thomas Magedanz's "On the integration of
> IN and TMN -- modeling IN-based service control capabilities
> as part of TMN-based service management", in _Integrated
> Network Management_, Vol. IV (1995), pp. 386-397. My
> recommendation is not that the IETF subjugate itself to ITU
> modeling and implementation techniques, but that we
> acknowledge the possibility that management and end-user
> services -- and more -- can be modeled in a comprehensive
> conceptual universe. Whether this actually happens is a
> political/economic question.
> 
> * What might a global community of interacting Internet
> objects (*) look like when they're up and running? Something
> like this:
> 
>  Node 1   Node 2   Node 3
>  +----+   +----+   +----+     +----+   +----+   +----+
>  | *  |   |    |   | * *| ... |  * |   |*   |   | *  |
>  |  * |   | *  |   |  * |     | *  |   | ** |   |*  *|
>  |*  *|   |   *|   |    |     | ** |   |   *|   |**  |
> +-----------------------------------------------------+
> |                                                     |
> |                 Globally extended                   |
> |             Virtual Internet Execution              |
> |                    environment                      |
> |                                                     |
> +-----------------------------------------------------+
>  |    |   |    |   |    |     |    |   |    |   |    |
>  | OS |   | OS |   | OS |     | OS |   | OS |   | OS |
>  | HW |   | HW |   | HW |     | HW |   | HW |   | HW |
>  |    |   |    |   |    |     |    |   |    |   |    |
>  +----+   +----+   +----+     +----+   +----+   +----+
>    ||       ||       ||         ||       ||       ||
>     -----------------------------------------------
> 
> The objects (*) are anything and everything that we're
> talking about modeling: protocol objects on various layers,
> management services, end-user services, applications, you
> name it. Which ones you'd want to model in depth is an open
> question.
> 
> Vie is composed of copies or kernels that run on the network
> of Internet nodes such as hosts, endsystems, intermediate
> systems, routers, etc. The OS/HW of each node is
> unspecified, heterogeneous; the execution environment, Vie,
> is the common element. It is available immediately through
> Java/JVM/RMI without reinventing the wheel. Or one could
> take the long way 'round like TINA and implement it through
> CORBA. Either way, it can be done. (I suspect AS operators
> will do the quick-and-dirty option through Java. But Vie is
> virtual; it doesn't depend on implementation decisions.)
> 
> This is only scratching the surface ...
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Tom Nelson Scott             Vedatel Co
> 1411 Sheffield Dr.           Bowling Green OH 43402
> "In IP We Trust"   "Java Rules"   "E Pluribus Unix"
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: NIM BOF Minutes
>    Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:34:16 -0700
>    From: "Andrea Westerinen" <andreaw@cisco.com>
>      To: "Walter Weiss" <wweiss@ellacoya.com>, <nim@psg.com>
> 
>  Walter, I have a couple points on the notes.  The entire
> discussion of scope - "What are we trying to accomplish with
> a Network Information Model?" is relegated to a few comments
> (mostly questions) in the "lengthy notes" section and the
> statement that we need a "carefully defined scope".  I think
> that this question was asked by several folks and was a
> prime discussion topic.  How can a WG form without a defined
> scope and charter?  Randy Bush stated this very well ...
> "The reason this is a rathole is twofold.  The [modeling]
> language [influences and] constrains how we think.  We
> design the language to meet the needs of [what] we want to
> express.  We need to discuss what we need to express, and
> then design the models and languages."Also, the notes say
> that general consensus was reached on the desirability "to
> have convergence of the various information models in use
> within the IETF".  I didn't hear consensus on this.  In
> fact, many of the comments from the floor were quite the
> contrary ("Would an effort like this contribute to a tower
> of Babel or fix it?" and "I am not sure if this work will
> help the various Working Groups; it may make them harder not
> easier:  n --> n+1, n --> 1").    Regarding your 3 "locuses"
> of positions, I strongly believe that there were 4 positions
> - the last one being ... "Without a scope, I cannot decide
> if the work has value or not."  This certainly was my
> position and other comments below echo it.Lastly, a nit -
> the session happened on Wednesday, August 2nd - not Tuesday,
> August 2nd.Andrea
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nim@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-nim@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Walter Weiss
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 10:45 AM
> To: nim@psg.com
> Subject: NIM BOF Minutes
> 
> Here are the NIM BOF meeting minutes. I would like to thank
> the note takers (Steve Moulton, Glen Waters, and Bob Moore)
> and Jeff for pulling it all together and providing a summary
> for the faint of heart.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Walter
> 
> {snip]