[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
Here, inline are my responses/comments
> ----------
> From: Dan Romascanu[SMTP:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 1:04 PM
> To: 'sming@ops.ietf.org'; Dave Sidor
> Cc: David Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; mibs; nim
> Subject: RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I think that Dave Sidor's message is a good example about some of the not
> so
> clear issues concerning this new work proposal. Note that I am now
> addressing the content, and not the procedure issues.
>
Yes, I got that. And I am trying to get a clear statement that the IESG can
make.
As you can see, we are all (including, or may be specifically, ADs) learning
as
we go.
> 1. You are mentioning that the proposal intents to 'move SMI forward to
> address some of the issues that have been raised in the last so many
> years'.
> In this case the first step should be to specify which problems we propose
> to solve. Maybe the first item in the deliverables list should be
> 'Requirements for SMIv3 document'.
That sounds plausible, but we do know quite a few reqmnts already.
For sure, I want to get SMI and SPPI back on the same track.
Now.. I would assume that the first WG meeting, or this mailing list
right now, allows for discussing this topic. Maybe someone can already
prepare an I-D to try and list the most important ones.
> 2. The text of the proposal still seems to indicate that it takes upon
> itself to provide an answer to the problem of the common information
> model.
> Dave Sidor read it this way, so did I. I happen to be convinced that such
> a
> model is needed, and deserves a separate framework, and SMIv3 is not the
> answer.
I did get this from your message. I think I tried to answer that in my
clarifications.
And when we do approve the WG, then I will certainly try to get the wording
improved/fixed. Specific text that you think would make it clearer can
always
be suggested on this list or directly to me.
> 3. I understand so well that we focus on SNMP and COPS, but it is too
> early
> for having decided about the solution. I think that I agree with your
> assessment in a previous mail, that the floor should be open for different
> proposals. This would include the good work done in the ITRF, but should
> not
> exclude other proposal that may come from different sources. The future
> Charter should have clear text about this.
>
The IETF process is open, and at any point people can raise any issues or
concerns they have. And when we start this work, I can also see that we
spend
some face to face time to discuss other possible solutions. We can also have
some email discussions on this. But for now... I do want to strongly suggest
that we first take a serious look at the IRTF docs that I hope will show up
rsn.
And the charter tries to convey that "strong suggestion". If the WG decides
later on that the "strong suggestion" should be ignored, then of course the
WG chairs and ADs will evaluate the issues raised to see if we need to
reconsider.
Bert
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [SMTP:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Fri October 27 2000 0:45
> > To: new-work; Dave Sidor
> > Cc: David Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; Dan Romascanu; mibs; rap; nim;
> > Network Management Research Group
> > Subject: RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> >
> > Dave, I am answering this email... but please for further
> > discussions, use sming@ops.ietf.org. To subscribe, send
> > email to majordomo@psg.org, in body say: subscribe sming
> >
> > Dave, if you want to discuss this further with OPS ADs or IESG
> > in general, then of course you can also send email to Rany and/or
> > myself and/or to the iesg@ietf.org mailing list.
> >
> > The Information Modeling you talk about is a topic of the NIM BOF.
> > That work has not been defined well enough yet to start a new WG.
> > We are proposing to move SMI forward to address some of the
> > issues that have been raised in the last so many years.
> >
> > Your input for both NIM discussions and for the potential sming WG
> > are of course very wellcome.
> >
> > Below, I see that your focus is on CMIP and CORBA.
> > Our focus for now is on SNMP and COPS.
> >
> > During the NIM BOF, I heard a lot of scepticism about the feasibility
> > of trying to define one Information Model that would be able to
> > handle all the different technologies and at the same time be
> > compatible with all the exitsing models.
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Dave Sidor[SMTP:djsidor@nortelnetworks.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 7:27 PM
> > > To: new-work
> > > Cc: David T. Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; Dan Romascanu; mibs;
> > rap; nim;
> > > Network Management Research Group
> > > Subject: Re: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> > >
> > > For your information, several years ago standards bodies involved in
> > > telecom management also recognized the need for the "definition of a
> > > transport-independent information information model so as to allow a
> > > variety of implementation-specific technologies to be derived from a
> > > single definition." This need was driven by advances in technologies
> > > applicable to telecom management, in fact to the management of
> networks
> > > of any description, and market pressures to take advantage of these
> > > advances.
> > >
> > > More specifically, ITU-T Study Group 4, which is responsible for the
> > > Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) framework, information
> > > models, and protocols, recently approved a revised TMN interface
> > > specification methodology in Recommendation M.3020 based on the
> > > following principles:
> > >
> > > - requirements need to be understandable to telecom management experts
> > > and yet provide sufficient detail to drive information modeling
> > >
> > > - information model details must be traceable to requirement details
> > >
> > > - information definitions must be defined independent of deployment
> (ie
> > > implementation) technology
> > >
> > > - industrial strength graphical methods and tools should be used, with
> > > an initial focus on OMG-approved Unified Modeling Language (UML)
> > > notations, including use case, class structure, sequence,
> collaboration,
> > > activity, and implementation diagrams as well as state charts
> > >
> > > - support for CMIP and CORBA environments should be provided initially
> > >
> > > This work was supported by related regional and national standards
> > > bodies, such as ETSI and T1, and built upon related work in the
> > > TeleManagement Forum.
> > >
> > > The role of M.3020 in TMN was described during the TMN SNMP BOF held
> at
> > > the IETF March meeting in Adelaide and related information from that
> > > BOF, including a copy of M.3020-2000, is available via ftp as follows:
> > >
> > > IP Address: 47.234.32.16
> > > UserID: anonymous
> > > Path: /itu_to_ietf/SG4
> > >
> > > Any comments on the above are of course welcome.
> > >
> > > Dave Sidor
> > > Chairman, ITU-T SG 4
> > > djsidor@nortelnetworks.com
> > >
> >
>