Subject: Re: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details]
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:44:57 -0700

my experience is take the train, it works.

randy

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:15:59 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details]
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1615
Lines: 48

Another response from Keith.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details
To: [email-masked] (Juergen Schoenwaelder)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> from "Juergen Schoenwaelder" at Aug 29, 2000 09:54:07 PM

> Keith> option b) would be best, if you can resolve it quickly.
> 
> I can try option b) tomorrow (although it will probably eat up at
> least half of the day) and see whether I can arrange something in
> Mannheim or so.
> 
> Keith> option c) would be OK, if it's within driving distance.
> 
> And this is hard to judge for me since I am obviously biased (and I
> would take the train anyway since this is the most comfortable way to
> travel from Frankfurt to Braunschweig) - unless you are really keen on
> driving German highways.

Yes, it seems to be too far.

Keith.

> Keith> Otherwise, I guess it's option a), but I hope I don't have to
> Keith> sleep in the car :-(.
> 
> Yes, we still have the option to rent a caravan or a big tent as the
> ultimate fallback solution. :-)
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> <[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
> 
> 
> 
------- End of forwarded message -------

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:15:45 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] [[email-masked]: Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details]
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 4041
Lines: 95

A response from Keith.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details
To: [email-masked] (Juergen Schoenwaelder)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: [email-masked] (Network Management Research Group),
        [email-masked] (Keith McCloghrie),
        [email-masked] (David Durham),
        [email-masked] (Andy Bierman)
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> from "Juergen Schoenwaelder" at Aug 29, 2000 05:15:57 PM

I currently have a reservation for a rental car from Frankfurt
airport.  I'd be happy to drive anywhere within a few hours from
Frankfurt.  Does that rules out Braunschweig ??  On the one hand, if the
3 hours by high-speed train is non-stop, then it's presumably more than
3 hours by car.  On the other hand, it looks on the map as if it's
about 150-200 miles, which on the autobahns I presume could be less
than 3 hours ??

I checked http://bahn.hafas.de, and for my return on Saturday, I'd
have to get a train on the Friday evening, and stay overnight in
Frankfurt.  That doesn't seem like the best option to me.

So,

  option b) would be best, if you can resolve it quickly.
  option c) would be OK, if it's within driving distance.

Otherwise, I guess it's option a), but I hope I don't have to sleep
in the car :-(.

Keith.

> Folks, the organization of the meeting scheduled for next week turns
> out to be more complicated than expected. Here is the current
> situation:
> 
> The German National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD)
> has volunteered to host the 7th NMRG meeting. This moves the meeting
> to Darmstadt, a city very close to the Frankfurt airport. They seem
> to have greate meeting facilities. 
> 
> When I tried to get hotel information, I learned that there is a big
> exhibition in Frankfurt in the first week of September. Due to this
> exhibition, all hotels in the greater Frankfurt area (including the
> Darmstadt area) seem to be booked. In fact, a guy from the tourist
> office told me that people are already booking rooms in cities like
> Mannheim or Heidelberg (which is about 1 hour away if you take the
> high-speed trains).
> 
> So we now have three options:
> 
> (a) Use the meeting facilities provided by the GMD in Darmstadt and
>     let everyone try his luck to find a place to stay. This may result
>     in a situation where folks have to spend traveling time each day
>     to reach the meeting place.
> 
> (b) Try to move the meeting a little bit further away from the
>     Frankfurt area (e.g. into the Mannheim area). Not sure yet how
>     difficult it will be to find a host and to get hotel rooms there.
> 
> (c) Change our original plan to hold the meeting in the Frankfurt area
>     and move the meeting to Braunschweig where I am located.  It takes
>     about 3 hours to get from Frankfurt to Braunschweig with the high
>     speed trains. However, once you are in Braunschweig, we have
>     enough hotel space (just checked) and everything is reachable
>     within a small distance.
> 
> Please let me know asap which option you prefer. Of course, option (c)
> is the easiest to deal with for me. If folks from the US prefer option
> (b), then I am willing to investigate this further tomorrow. So please
> drop me a note quickly.
> 
> [BTW, you can get travel information from the German railways by going
>  to <URL:http://bahn.hafas.de/> and entering "Frankfurt Airport FRA"
>  as the starting point and Braunschweig as the destination. Choose
>  the date and time to check whether there is a train directly
>  connecting your flight.]
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> <[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
> 
> 
> 
------- End of forwarded message -------

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:54:07 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: [nmrg] Re: sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1954
Lines: 50

>>>>> Keith McCloghrie writes:

Keith> I currently have a reservation for a rental car from Frankfurt
Keith> airport.  I'd be happy to drive anywhere within a few hours
Keith> from Frankfurt.  Does that rules out Braunschweig ??

Depends on your car and your driving style since we do not have so
strict speed limits in Germany. ;-)

keith> On the one hand, if the 3 hours by high-speed train is
keith> non-stop, then it's presumably more than 3 hours by car.  On
keith> the other hand, it looks on the map as if it's about 150-200
keith> miles, which on the autobahns I presume could be less than 3
keith> hours ??

My map says that the distance between Frankfurt and Braunschweig is
338 km (= 210 miles) and the travel time by car (without any stops) is
estimated as 3.5 hours. You can go faster if the traffic allows. (You
can also go much slower if traffic does not allow.) Note that the
trains run up to 250 km/h (= 155 mph) which is hard to beat.

Keith> option b) would be best, if you can resolve it quickly.

I can try option b) tomorrow (although it will probably eat up at
least half of the day) and see whether I can arrange something in
Mannheim or so.

Keith> option c) would be OK, if it's within driving distance.

And this is hard to judge for me since I am obviously biased (and I
would take the train anyway since this is the most comfortable way to
travel from Frankfurt to Braunschweig) - unless you are really keen on
driving German highways.

Keith> Otherwise, I guess it's option a), but I hope I don't have to
Keith> sleep in the car :-(.

Yes, we still have the option to rent a caravan or a big tent as the
ultimate fallback solution. :-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:15:57 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
CC: Keith McCloghrie <[email-masked]>, David Durham <[email-masked]>, Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] sming/sppi/smiv2 integration meeting details
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2481
Lines: 56

Folks, the organization of the meeting scheduled for next week turns
out to be more complicated than expected. Here is the current
situation:

The German National Research Center for Information Technology (GMD)
has volunteered to host the 7th NMRG meeting. This moves the meeting
to Darmstadt, a city very close to the Frankfurt airport. They seem
to have greate meeting facilities. 

When I tried to get hotel information, I learned that there is a big
exhibition in Frankfurt in the first week of September. Due to this
exhibition, all hotels in the greater Frankfurt area (including the
Darmstadt area) seem to be booked. In fact, a guy from the tourist
office told me that people are already booking rooms in cities like
Mannheim or Heidelberg (which is about 1 hour away if you take the
high-speed trains).

So we now have three options:

(a) Use the meeting facilities provided by the GMD in Darmstadt and
    let everyone try his luck to find a place to stay. This may result
    in a situation where folks have to spend traveling time each day
    to reach the meeting place.

(b) Try to move the meeting a little bit further away from the
    Frankfurt area (e.g. into the Mannheim area). Not sure yet how
    difficult it will be to find a host and to get hotel rooms there.

(c) Change our original plan to hold the meeting in the Frankfurt area
    and move the meeting to Braunschweig where I am located.  It takes
    about 3 hours to get from Frankfurt to Braunschweig with the high
    speed trains. However, once you are in Braunschweig, we have
    enough hotel space (just checked) and everything is reachable
    within a small distance.

Please let me know asap which option you prefer. Of course, option (c)
is the easiest to deal with for me. If folks from the US prefer option
(b), then I am willing to investigate this further tomorrow. So please
drop me a note quickly.

[BTW, you can get travel information from the German railways by going
 to <URL:http://bahn.hafas.de/> and entering "Frankfurt Airport FRA"
 as the starting point and Braunschweig as the destination. Choose
 the date and time to check whether there is a train directly
 connecting your flight.]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] Common Information Structure
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:09:05 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 533
Lines: 17

>Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:35:14 -0400
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>From: Andrew Watson <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Common Information Structure document
>
>Good Afternoon,
>
>We have received a document from Telemanagement Forum describing the Common
>Information Structure methodology they have developed for use in
>protocol-neutral modelling. It has been filed as document ad/00-08-13:
>
>     http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/00-08-13
>
>                             Regards,
>
>                                  Andrew

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:18:14 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 865
Lines: 22

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> Juergen, This is only 2 weeks away.  I already have
Andrea> commitments for these dates.  More notice is needed for such a
Andrea> meeting.

I generally agree. However, in this case, I believe we need to get
discussions going quickly. There are some other time constraints which
affect the availability of folks later in September and October.

[I know, the date is not pretty. Even I have to enjoy a 15 hours train
 trip through the night to be in Frankfurt on time since I actually
 planned to be at some other place during that week.]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:10:04 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 328
Lines: 15

>>>>> David T Perkins writes:

David> Is this meeting actually going to happen on this date?

Yes, I think so.

David> It would be much better to move it back at least a couple of
David> weeks to allow time to set up travel.

There are several reasons why this is problematic. So I would like
to retain the meeting date.

/js

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:01:42 -0700
To: "Network Management Research Group" <[email-masked]>
From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 188
Lines: 9

HI,

Is this meeting actually going to happen on this date?

It would be much better to move it back at least a couple of
weeks to allow time to set up travel.

Regards,
/david t. perkins

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:02:23 -0700
To: "Network Management Research Group" <[email-masked]>
From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 189
Lines: 9

HI,

Is this meeting actually going to happen on this date?

It would be much better to move it back at least a couple of
weeks to allow time to set up travel.

Regards,
/david t. perkins 

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>, "Network Management Research Group" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:01:55 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2659
Lines: 70

Juergen, This is only 2 weeks away.  I already have commitments for these
dates.  More notice is needed for such a meeting.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 3:07 AM
To: Network Management Research Group
Subject: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting

During the IETF meeting in Pittsburgh, many people expressed that it
is valuable to merge SMIv2/SMIng/SPPI into a single next generation
data definition language to be used at least with SNMP and COPS, but
perhaps also with DIAMETER and other protocols which separate data
definitions from the protocol itself. There is also a NIM requirements
document which identifies language features that are considered
important by the "modeling experts".

I got the impression that the time has come to seriously dive into the
details and to find out whether we can come up with a language
proposal which can actually reduce the number of languages in use
within the IETF for defining data models. In order to move forward
quickly, I am organizing a meeting next month to address this
issue. Here are the logistic details as known right now:

   Date:  September 6-8 (Wednesday-Friday)
   Place: Frankfurt, Germany
   Host:  <under discussion>

Some people who are not members of the NMRG are likely to attend this
meeting in order to get additional subject matter experts involved.

This meeting is intended to dive into the technical details. For this
to be possible, I expect that participants are well prepared and are
willing to work effectively towards the stated goal of the meeting.
In particular, I expect participants to be familiar with the following
documents:

- SMIv2 as defined in RFC 2578-2580

- SMIng as defined in <draft-irtf-nmrg-sming-02.txt>

- SPPI as defined in <draft-ietf-rap-sppi-01.txt>

- NIM requirements as described in <draft-durham-nim-req-01.txt>

Participants should also understand the SNMP and COPS-PR protocols.
Knowledge in other related areas (e.g. diameter, other data definition
languages, mappings between data definition languages) is of course
helpful and welcome.

If you plan to attend, then please drop me a note as soon as possible
so that I can better plan ahead and inform the local host about the
meeting facilities we actually need.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:06:36 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] smiv2/sppi/sming integration meeting
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2264
Lines: 55

During the IETF meeting in Pittsburgh, many people expressed that it
is valuable to merge SMIv2/SMIng/SPPI into a single next generation
data definition language to be used at least with SNMP and COPS, but
perhaps also with DIAMETER and other protocols which separate data
definitions from the protocol itself. There is also a NIM requirements
document which identifies language features that are considered
important by the "modeling experts".

I got the impression that the time has come to seriously dive into the
details and to find out whether we can come up with a language
proposal which can actually reduce the number of languages in use
within the IETF for defining data models. In order to move forward
quickly, I am organizing a meeting next month to address this
issue. Here are the logistic details as known right now:

   Date:  September 6-8 (Wednesday-Friday)
   Place: Frankfurt, Germany
   Host:  <under discussion>

Some people who are not members of the NMRG are likely to attend this
meeting in order to get additional subject matter experts involved.

This meeting is intended to dive into the technical details. For this
to be possible, I expect that participants are well prepared and are
willing to work effectively towards the stated goal of the meeting.
In particular, I expect participants to be familiar with the following
documents:

- SMIv2 as defined in RFC 2578-2580

- SMIng as defined in <draft-irtf-nmrg-sming-02.txt>

- SPPI as defined in <draft-ietf-rap-sppi-01.txt>

- NIM requirements as described in <draft-durham-nim-req-01.txt>

Participants should also understand the SNMP and COPS-PR protocols.
Knowledge in other related areas (e.g. diameter, other data definition
languages, mappings between data definition languages) is of course
helpful and welcome.

If you plan to attend, then please drop me a note as soon as possible
so that I can better plan ahead and inform the local host about the
meeting facilities we actually need.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:58:02 +0200
From: Aiko Pras <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 612
Lines: 14

Hi all

Andrea> December 8-9 works for me - except that we will have to go out
Andrea> for food, etc. since there is no catering on the weekends.

Juergen> Great. So we will tentatively fix this date. (Getting some food 
Juergen> should not be a major problem I guess.)
Juergen> I would like to ask those of you who did not respond yet to 
Juergen> drop me a note whether they plan to attend or not. This helps
Juergen> to figure out how many people will actually show up. 
I expect that I will be able to join that meeting. Also the other
meeting (Internet Management Vision Workshop) sounds interesting.

Aiko

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 854
Lines: 34

I can do 8-9 Dec I think.
I guess I would prefer the meeting to be in Austin or in San Diego,
which may reduce the time spend on travel.

Bert

> ----------
> From: 	David Harrington[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:46 PM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Subject: 	Re: [nmrg] future meetings
> 
> 
> 
> "J.P. Martin-Flatin" wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:15:40 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >
> > > The weekend option December 8-9 is infact my preference. What do
> > > others think?
> > 
> > These dates are fine with me.
> > 
> > JP
> 
> Those dates look OK to me as well.
> dbh
> -- 
> ---
> David Harrington            Network Management Standards Architect
> [email-masked]           Office of the CTO
> +1 603 337 2614 - voice     Enterasys Networks
> +1 603 332 1524 - fax       Rochester NH, USA
> 

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:52:31 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 813
Lines: 20

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> December 8-9 works for me - except that we will have to go out
Andrea> for food, etc. since there is no catering on the weekends.

Great. So we will tentatively fix this date. (Getting some food should
not be a major problem I guess.)

I would like to ask those of you who did not respond yet to drop me a
note whether they plan to attend or not. This helps to figure out how
many people will actually show up. I also think we should invite some
additional subject matter experts. Assuming that this will be the
Information Modeling Workshop, we should try to get information
modelers from other organizations involved so that we can learn from
what they have been doing. Let me know if you have any specific
suggestions so that we can contact people early enough.

/js

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:32:11 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 536
Lines: 19

Andrea> I would be happy to host at Cisco in San Jose either before or
Andrea> after the IETF in San Diego.

<Juergen> This sounds great. So this is probably going to be the information
<Juergen> modeling workshop, right? ;-)

It is whatever the NMRG wants :-).

<snip>

<Juergen> The weekend option December 8-9 is infact my preference. What do
<Juergen> others think? Are there options I have missed?

December 8-9 works for me - except that we will have to go out for food,
etc. since there is no catering on the weekends.

Andrea

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:46:19 -0400
From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Organization: Enterasys Networks
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 488
Lines: 21

"J.P. Martin-Flatin" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:15:40 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >
> > The weekend option December 8-9 is infact my preference. What do
> > others think?
> 
> These dates are fine with me.
> 
> JP

Those dates look OK to me as well.
dbh
-- 
---
David Harrington            Network Management Standards Architect
[email-masked]           Office of the CTO
+1 603 337 2614 - voice     Enterasys Networks
+1 603 332 1524 - fax       Rochester NH, USA

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings 
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:27:30 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 187
Lines: 9

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:15:40 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> The weekend option December 8-9 is infact my preference. What do
> others think?

These dates are fine with me.

JP

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:15:40 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1335
Lines: 41

>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> I would be happy to host at Cisco in San Jose either before or
Andrea> after the IETF in San Diego.

This sounds great. So this is probably going to be the information
modeling workshop, right? ;-)

Can we try to settle on a date? Here is what I know is going on in
December:

 4-6	DSOM 2000 (Austin, Texas)
 6-7	IM 2001 PC meeting (Austin, Texas)
10-15	49. IETF (San Diego, California)

And here is how December looks like (just in case you don't have your
calendar handy):

     Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
                     1  2
      3  4  5  6  7  8  9
     10 11 12 13 14 15 16
     17 18 19 20 21 22 23
     24 25 26 27 28 29 30
     31

Doing the meeting after the IETF is probably difficult since this is
getting really close to Xmas. On the other hand, holding the meeting
before DSOM increases travelling (since participants on all meetings
now make the trip -> CA -> TX -> CA ->. Another option would be to use
the weekend and to hold the meeting on December 8-9 - although this
may be a problem for people who prefer to be at home during the
weekend (which is not an issue for Europeans - I think ;-).

The weekend option December 8-9 is infact my preference. What do
others think? Are there options I have missed? Please let us know
quickly so we can settle on a meeting data.

/js

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:12:43 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1879
Lines: 51

I would be happy to host at Cisco in San Jose either before or after the
IETF in San Diego.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> I think it is important to plan them a little bit further out,
Bert> so that people have ample time to plan for attending.

Yes. As I said, I am open for any suggestions when and where to hold
future meeting. Also volunteers who want to organize a meeting at
their premises are more than welcome to speak up.

One opportunity may be to have a meeting around December somewhere in
the US since there is DSOM 2000 (December 4-6) in Austin TX and the
49th IETF (December 11-15) in San Diego CA. I expect that many folks
are going to one or even both of these meetings anyway.

I could certainly volunteer to host another meeting at say the end of
October here in Braunschweig, Germany. But I have some doubts that
folks from the US like the idea to travel to a place in Europe without
a big airport close by - so I am more than happy if there are any
other suggestions.

Bert> I would also like to see representation of some real operators
Bert> (i.e. users of all our technologies).

This is going to be tough. I may be able to contact some folks who are
running mobile phone networks in Germany. Likewise, I think we can ask
people who are running the European research network infrastructure.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:11:43 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 666
Lines: 25

>>>>> J P Martin-Flatin writes:

>>  (1) Information Modeling Workshop

JP> We've talked about it already. I long for such a meeting.

[...]

So you are interested. I am not commenting on the arguments you have
raised since I would prefer to have this discussion in that meeting.

JP> Joint with an IM, NOMS, or DSOM meeting.

The typical "research side" answer I expected. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings 
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:30:07 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 4764
Lines: 109

On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:07:30 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> (1) Information Modeling Workshop

Juergen,

We've talked about it already. I long for such a meeting. I think
we need to build a bridge between the IETF and DMTF worlds, for
information modelers to meet, talk, and exchange experience in all
management areas. AFAIK, they've only done that for policies in the
past. In many respects, the DMTF is currently reinventing the wheel
and the IETF know-how is not shared. This is too bad. The NMRG might
be the right middleman to open this dialog.

>     The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
>     of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
>     things:
> 
>     - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
>       groups.

Yes

>     - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.

I'm not sure there's anything new to be said here. SNMP MIBs are all
instrumentation MIBs, with the usual problems associated with low-level
semantics. The DMTF is working on high- and low-level MIBs, but they've
so far ignored large areas in integrated management. If you're not yet
convinced, browse through the MOF files of CIM Schema 2.3 and look for
the info. we routinely find in SNMP MIBs, today, in deployed equipment:

  http://www.dmtf.org/spec/cim_schema_v23.html

>     - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
>       world products and markets.

Apart from Luca and I, I don't think many of us have managed real-life
networks. And if you talk to production guys who have no research
background and don't have the time to put things into perspective,
they'll simply tell you: I want HPOV to twist this and change that.
I'm afraid we might find it difficult to progress on this item.

>     - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
>       for the Internet.

In my view, SNMP information modeling has no long-term future because
it isn't object oriented. But CIM is getting complex, many class names
are bizarre and counterintuitive (e.g., the concepts of events, alerts,
and indications are bogus), and the OSI management syndrome is looming.
I suggest we critically assess CIM, compare it with the good sides of
the SNMP information model, and see where we should go from there.

>     For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
>     experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
>     willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.

My previous discussions with TINA and ODP people have not been fruitful.
I'd rather we invite OMG experts. They've done a lot of good work in
information modeling, but this work has been ignored by the IETF and
DMTF so far. I'm thinking of the 4-tier modeling architecture proposed
for CORBA, with M0, M1, M2, and M3. See for instance:

  C. Atkinson. "Meta-Modeling for Distributed Object Environments".
  In Proc. 1st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing
  Conference (EDOC '97), Gold Coast, Australia, October, 1997. IEEE
  Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1997.

The only active person that I know in this area is Jean Bezivin, but
he's way too busy with standardization work. Is any of you well
connected with the OMG?

> (2) Internet Management Vision Workshop
> 
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to develop a vision for
>     Internet management in say 5-10 years. We all have experience with
>     the data definitions oriented approach. Other approaches such as
>     programmable networks have been proposed in the last few years.
>     This workshop should try to bring people familiar with various
>     approaches together to discuss at a very high level what the
>     particular strengths and weaknesses are. The outcome produced by
>     such a workshop could be a position paper which classifies
>     approaches and technologies, analyzes them and derives some
>     conclusions regarding the future managment of the Internet.

Wait a few weeks and you'll get a long answer in Chapters 3 and 4 of my
Ph.D. dissertation.

>     For this to be effective, I propose to invite additional experts
>     that are well familiar with some of the new technologies and who
>     are able to come up with good judgements about the feasibility of
>     the various approaches.

This looks like a good panel proposal for DSOM 2000 or IM 2001. Why
don't you organize this?

> In order to get things moving, I would like to get feedback on these
> topics. Please indicate whether you are interested enough to actually
> attend such a meeting.

Yes

> I also appreciate any recommendations on where
> and when to hold such a workshop.

Joint with an IM, NOMS, or DSOM meeting.

Jean-Philippe

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:03:23 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1520
Lines: 35

>>>>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) writes:

Bert> I think it is important to plan them a little bit further out,
Bert> so that people have ample time to plan for attending.

Yes. As I said, I am open for any suggestions when and where to hold
future meeting. Also volunteers who want to organize a meeting at
their premises are more than welcome to speak up.

One opportunity may be to have a meeting around December somewhere in
the US since there is DSOM 2000 (December 4-6) in Austin TX and the
49th IETF (December 11-15) in San Diego CA. I expect that many folks
are going to one or even both of these meetings anyway.

I could certainly volunteer to host another meeting at say the end of
October here in Braunschweig, Germany. But I have some doubts that
folks from the US like the idea to travel to a place in Europe without
a big airport close by - so I am more than happy if there are any
other suggestions.

Bert> I would also like to see representation of some real operators
Bert> (i.e. users of all our technologies).

This is going to be tough. I may be able to contact some folks who are
running mobile phone networks in Germany. Likewise, I think we can ask
people who are running the European research network infrastructure.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 10:24:13 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1567
Lines: 37

>>>>> Harald Alvestrand writes:

>> (1) Information Modeling Workshop
>> 

Harald> This sounds bizarrely like the NIM group (info model for the
Harald> Internet).

I got the impression from the BOF that work on a common information
model (in the ISO/OSI or CIM sense of this term) did not get much
support from the people present in that room. On the other hand,
people in other organizations spend large amounts of their time
developing these models. So the question remains whether the IETF is
right in ignoring these activities or whether the other folks are
right in doing this work. One way to get closer to an answer is to get
people from the various groups to sit together and talk with each
other. Sure, this will not be easy as we probably need to spend at
least half a day to work out the differences in terminologies in those
groups in order to understand each other. But it may be worthwhile to
try this exercise (even if the output is not a definite answer whether
information models are good or bad and just a better understanding
what all these groups are doing and why).

Now, if the IESG decides to create a NIM working group chartered to
develop a common information model for the Internet, then the right
place for such a discussion is indeed such a NIM WG...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 02:06:59 +0200 
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1681
Lines: 43

Comments inline

> ----------
> From: 	Harald Alvestrand[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, August 08, 2000 2:00 PM
> To: 	Juergen Schoenwaelder; Network Management Research Group
> Subject: 	Re: [nmrg] future meetings
> 
> At 15:07 07/08/2000 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> >I think it is time to start discussion on future NMRG meetings. I will
> >propose two meeting topics below based on what I have heard people
> >were looking for or talking about. Of course, I also invite people to
> >bring up any other topics they think should be discussed in this
> >group.
> >
> >(1) Information Modeling Workshop
> >
> >     The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
> >     of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
> >     things:
> >
> >     - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
> >       groups.
> >     - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.
> >     - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
> >       world products and markets.
> >     - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
> >       for the Internet.
> >     - ...
> >
> >     For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
> >     experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
> >     willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.
> 
> This sounds bizarrely like the NIM group (info model for the Internet).
> 
Yes, and I would assume that the key players would be invited
to the meeting. I think I sort of consider it as a design team meeting
where key players continue the discussion on NIIIM-type topics

Bert

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Organization: U.C.Davis, Information Technology - D.C.A.S.
Date: 08 Aug 2000 10:24:39 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 574
Lines: 13

>>>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:07:30 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Juergen> (1) Information Modeling Workshop
Juergen> (2) Internet Management Vision Workshop

Both of these sound interesting and useful.  Certainly, publicly
available minutes of the meeting, if nothing else, would be great for
the management world at large.  I've spoken with a large number of
people that routinely ask me questions about these 2 topics, so I know 
there is interest out there.

-- 
"Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them."

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>, "Network Management Research Group" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 09:02:31 -0700
Importance: Normal
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2770
Lines: 72

On #1, it does indeed sound like NIM, but the BOF was not scoped nor was
there much data on info models, their pros and cons, the existing languages,
their pros and cons, etc. I think that if NMRG worked on this for awhile, it
could help the IETF and industry as a whole.  Even if the only outcome was
to scope the problem.

I would definitely support this.
Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:01 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Network Management Research Group
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings

At 15:07 07/08/2000 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

>I think it is time to start discussion on future NMRG meetings. I will
>propose two meeting topics below based on what I have heard people
>were looking for or talking about. Of course, I also invite people to
>bring up any other topics they think should be discussed in this
>group.
>
>(1) Information Modeling Workshop
>
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
>     of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
>     things:
>
>     - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
>       groups.
>     - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.
>     - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
>       world products and markets.
>     - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
>       for the Internet.
>     - ...
>
>     For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
>     experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
>     willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.

This sounds bizarrely like the NIM group (info model for the Internet).

>(2) Internet Management Vision Workshop
>
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to develop a vision for
>     Internet management in say 5-10 years. We all have experience with
>     the data definitions oriented approach. Other approaches such as
>     programmable networks have been proposed in the last few years.
>     This workshop should try to bring people familiar with various
>     approaches together to discuss at a very high level what the
>     particular strengths and weaknesses are. The outcome produced by
>     such a workshop could be a position paper which classifies
>     approaches and technologies, analyzes them and derives some
>     conclusions regarding the future managment of the Internet.

This one, on the other hand, is distinctly different and definitely worth
pursuing, IMHO.

                 Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:00:51 +0200
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>, Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2139
Lines: 53

At 15:07 07/08/2000 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

>I think it is time to start discussion on future NMRG meetings. I will
>propose two meeting topics below based on what I have heard people
>were looking for or talking about. Of course, I also invite people to
>bring up any other topics they think should be discussed in this
>group.
>
>(1) Information Modeling Workshop
>
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
>     of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
>     things:
>
>     - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
>       groups.
>     - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.
>     - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
>       world products and markets.
>     - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
>       for the Internet.
>     - ...
>
>     For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
>     experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
>     willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.

This sounds bizarrely like the NIM group (info model for the Internet).

>(2) Internet Management Vision Workshop
>
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to develop a vision for
>     Internet management in say 5-10 years. We all have experience with
>     the data definitions oriented approach. Other approaches such as
>     programmable networks have been proposed in the last few years.
>     This workshop should try to bring people familiar with various
>     approaches together to discuss at a very high level what the
>     particular strengths and weaknesses are. The outcome produced by
>     such a workshop could be a position paper which classifies
>     approaches and technologies, analyzes them and derives some
>     conclusions regarding the future managment of the Internet.

This one, on the other hand, is distinctly different and definitely worth 
pursuing, IMHO.

                 Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [nmrg] future meetings
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:37:01 +0200 
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 3286
Lines: 78

As you would expect (I guess) I am interested to participate and
also in the outcome of these meetings. 

If I can help organise, I will certainly do so.

I think it is important to plan them a little bit further out, so
that people have ample time to plan for attending.

I would also like to see representation of some real operators 
(i.e. users of all our technologies).

Bert

> ----------
> From: 	Juergen Schoenwaelder[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Monday, August 07, 2000 3:07 PM
> To: 	Network Management Research Group
> Subject: 	[nmrg] future meetings
> 
> 
> I think it is time to start discussion on future NMRG meetings. I will
> propose two meeting topics below based on what I have heard people
> were looking for or talking about. Of course, I also invite people to
> bring up any other topics they think should be discussed in this
> group.
> 
> (1) Information Modeling Workshop
> 
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
>     of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
>     things:
> 
>     - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
>       groups.
>     - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.
>     - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
>       world products and markets.
>     - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
>       for the Internet.
>     - ...
> 
>     For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
>     experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
>     willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.
> 
> (2) Internet Management Vision Workshop
> 
>     The purpose of this workshop would be to develop a vision for
>     Internet management in say 5-10 years. We all have experience with
>     the data definitions oriented approach. Other approaches such as
>     programmable networks have been proposed in the last few years.
>     This workshop should try to bring people familiar with various
>     approaches together to discuss at a very high level what the
>     particular strengths and weaknesses are. The outcome produced by
>     such a workshop could be a position paper which classifies
>     approaches and technologies, analyzes them and derives some
>     conclusions regarding the future managment of the Internet.
> 
>     For this to be effective, I propose to invite additional experts
>     that are well familiar with some of the new technologies and who
>     are able to come up with good judgements about the feasibility of
>     the various approaches.
> 
> In order to get things moving, I would like to get feedback on these
> topics. Please indicate whether you are interested enough to actually
> attend such a meeting. I also appreciate any recommendations on where
> and when to hold such a workshop. If someone wants to step in and help
> me to organize one of these workshops, please let me know.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> <[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
> 
> 

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:07:30 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] future meetings
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 2592
Lines: 59

I think it is time to start discussion on future NMRG meetings. I will
propose two meeting topics below based on what I have heard people
were looking for or talking about. Of course, I also invite people to
bring up any other topics they think should be discussed in this
group.

(1) Information Modeling Workshop

    The purpose of this workshop would be to dive into the details
    of network information modeling. Such a workshop may do several
    things:

    - Produce a good overview of what has been done so far in various
      groups.
    - Discuss the pros and cons of doing information modeling work.
    - Identify how information modeling work interacts with real
      world products and markets.
    - Discuss key elements for a proposal of a CIM like/light model
      for the Internet.
    - ...

    For this to be effective, we probably need to invite additional
    experts (e.g. TINA or ODP folks) or we need volunteers who are
    willing to work out good summaries of these related projects.

(2) Internet Management Vision Workshop

    The purpose of this workshop would be to develop a vision for
    Internet management in say 5-10 years. We all have experience with
    the data definitions oriented approach. Other approaches such as
    programmable networks have been proposed in the last few years.
    This workshop should try to bring people familiar with various
    approaches together to discuss at a very high level what the
    particular strengths and weaknesses are. The outcome produced by
    such a workshop could be a position paper which classifies
    approaches and technologies, analyzes them and derives some
    conclusions regarding the future managment of the Internet.

    For this to be effective, I propose to invite additional experts
    that are well familiar with some of the new technologies and who
    are able to come up with good judgements about the feasibility of
    the various approaches.

In order to get things moving, I would like to get feedback on these
topics. Please indicate whether you are interested enough to actually
attend such a meeting. I also appreciate any recommendations on where
and when to hold such a workshop. If someone wants to step in and help
me to organize one of these workshops, please let me know.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:23:42 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] nmrg web page updated
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 244
Lines: 9

I have made all the NMRG related material I used in various
presentations last week available from the NMRG web page.

Dave Thaler, if you want me to put your bulk data transfer slides from
the SNMPv3 there as well, just drop me a note.

/js

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:49:53 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] open plenary presentation slides
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 568
Lines: 19

You can pick up the slides from by presentation in the open plenary of
the 48th IETF in Pittsburgh from the following location:

http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/slides/nmrg.ppt

There is also a PostScript version:

http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/slides/nmrg.ps

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>

Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 10:30:52 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] welcome dave perkins
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 53
Lines: 4

Dave Perkins has just joined our mailing list.

/js

Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:32:20 +0200
From: Ron Sprenkels <[email-masked]>
Organization: University of Twente
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
CC: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] plenary feedback
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1586
Lines: 33

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> The issue (which usually comes up in this context, as Erik Huizer pointed
> out) is the openess of this effort.
> 
> Some folks seem to believe that the fact that you can not directly
> subscribe to the list is equal with some secret stuff going on behind
> the scenes. 

Well, proving that this list is not secret can be proven by pointing those folks
to the public archives of the list at
http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/nmrg/marchive-2000/, right?

> So we will probably have to have another round on the topic whether we
> (a) keep things as they are now or (b) open this list up and rely on
> the chair to find ways to stop any discussions that distract this
> group from moving forward.

In my opinion, the most powerful 'tool' the chair currently has to steer and guide
the way things are running in this group is the ability to control who is in it. I
think this is an important thing to have and to keep. Completely opening up the
group results in the chair losing control over 1) who is/isn't in the group 2) the
size of the group. So, if (a) and (b) are the options, I'm in favour of (a). The
target size and the acceptance policy for the group are related issues; getting a
bit bigger in a controlled way might be a good idea.

Ron.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sprenkels  [email-masked]   http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~sprenkel
University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, TSS Management group 
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.    (Tel. +31 53 489 4663)

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] plenary feedback 
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:51:19 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 85
Lines: 5

> NMRG is not the only group in NM to work like this.

this is not an ietf wg

randy

To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] plenary feedback
From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Organization: U.C.Davis, Information Technology - D.C.A.S.
Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:49:54 -0700
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 21

>>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 05:39:25 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> said:

Juergen> So we will probably have to have another round on the topic
Juergen> whether we (a) keep things as they are now or (b) open this
Juergen> list up and rely on the chair to find ways to stop any
Juergen> discussions that distract this group from moving forward.

I'm always on the fence on this issue.  I think what we should do is
to:

1) do the preliminary research in a small group (as it currently is).

2) but do a better job pushing it out faster.  Possibly start up a
   second list that is open in which documents that have been
   published (eg, the already existing internet-drafts) can be
   discussed.  This promote more review of the documents before they
   try to get moved into a IETF working group (and end up in a brawl
   like was recently started by the tcp draft).

-- 
"Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them."

From: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "J.P. Martin-Flatin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] plenary feedback 
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:16:18 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 1392
Lines: 33

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 05:39:25 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> The issue [...] is the openess of this effort.
> 
> Some folks seem to believe that the fact that you can not directly
> subscribe to the list is equal with some secret stuff going on behind
> the scenes.

NMRG is not the only group in NM to work like this. My registration with
the DMTF WBEM Interoperability WG went through a similar procedure, with
acceptance by the VP of Technology, then the WG chair. As far as I know,
the DMTF WGs are not accused of lacking openness. Even academics can join
this industrial consortium!

> So we will probably have to have another round on the topic whether we
> (a) keep things as they are now or (b) open this list up and rely on
> the chair to find ways to stop any discussions that distract this
> group from moving forward.

I vote for (a). To give a better feeling of openness, we could perhaps
remove the following phrase from the charter:

  ", with a maximum of approximately 12 members"

People interested to join in, with a background in NM justifying a
possible membership, might not give up thinking that all 12 positions
are already filled. In view of the wide scope of research interests
among the current members, I think we could increase the number of
members, e.g. to 18 or 20. This could make it easier to reach a critical
mass when we launch a new project.

JP

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Cc: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] plenary feedback
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 07:06:51 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 268
Lines: 8

> So we will probably have to have another round on the topic whether we
> (a) keep things as they are now or (b) open this list up and rely on
> the chair to find ways to stop any discussions that distract this
> group from moving forward.

next slide, please

randy

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 05:39:25 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
To: Network Management Research Group <[email-masked]>
Subject: [nmrg] plenary feedback
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: O
Content-Length: 908
Lines: 23

There was some Q&A after my presentation in Pittsburgh. I will not go
into the details of the questions raised (since I think they are not
all particularly relevant - although they kind of surprised me). The
issue (which usually comes up in this context, as Erik Huizer pointed
out) is the openess of this effort.

Some folks seem to believe that the fact that you can not directly
subscribe to the list is equal with some secret stuff going on behind
the scenes. In fact, I thought about this issue before doing the
presentation since it is clear that the requests to subscribe to this
list will increase (and I always get a bounce message )-:).

So we will probably have to have another round on the topic whether we
(a) keep things as they are now or (b) open this list up and rely on
the chair to find ways to stop any discussions that distract this
group from moving forward.

Comments welcome.

/js