Subject: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:39:17 +0300

Following the OPS area meetings and mini-BOF sessions in Prague we have
created two new mail lists: 

[email-masked] - this list will focus on discussions about the need
and requirements for a meta data model in the network management space
and what the IETF should do on this respect

[email-masked] - the list will discuss the need and requirements of
converting MIB modules into resource models for the SOA/Web Services
Management environment and work that should be done in the IETF in this
field

The two lists will create a framework for discussions and contributions
for the respective subjects and will allow the operations and management
community to debate the level of interest and what should be done
respectively in the two fields. If you are interested please subscribe
and participate. 

Dan

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:35:42 +0200

> respectively in the two fields. If you are interested please subscribe

I would prefer if mailing lists are created once there is actually
enough traffic to warrant a new mailing list. I believe we already
have too many "ops" mailing lists and I like to ask the ADs to
consider actually merging lists instead of creating more.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:08:13 -0400

What does meta-modeling cover?

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:38:20 +0300

This is the follow-up to one of the mini-BOFs in Prague
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4/sld1.htm. 

Dan

> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:08 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area
> 
> > Following the OPS area meetings and mini-BOF sessions in Prague we 
> > have created two new mail lists:
> > 
> > [email-masked] - this list will focus on discussions about the 
> > need and requirements for a meta data model in the network 
> management
> space
> > Management environment and work that should be done in the IETF in 
> > this field
> > 
> > The two lists will create a framework for discussions and 
> > contributions for the respective subjects and will allow the 
> > operations and management community to debate the level of interest 
> > and what should be done respectively in the two fields. If you are 
> > interested please
> subscribe
> > and participate. 
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> >

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:05:03 -0400

I agree; I find it hard to carry on similar discussions on a wide
variety of mailing lists. I also would like to see the cross-posting
to OPS lists reduced. It would be better to have fewer OPS mailing
lists.

dbh

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 7:36 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area
> 
> contributions

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:16:18 -0400

Hi,

While my first reaction was to agree with Juergen and Dave on this
matter, it occurs to me that for a topic that might benefit from input
from experts outside the traditional OpsArea domain (e.g., MIB2RMDL)
having the dedicated list makes it easier to involve them (or for them
to get involved).

Cheers,
BobN 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 1:05 PM
To: [email-masked]; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] New Mailing Lists in the OPS area

dbh

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:17:39 +0300

I have to respectfully disagree with you two on this. Creating a list
does not require too many resources. It is easier to measure the level
of interest on a specific topics if the discussions are focused on a
separate list where only who is interested in the respective topics
subscribes. If there is enough interest on the topics we can continue,
otherwise if the interest dies the list can be shut done. We have done
this recently with the ntdp list. 

Dan

> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> I agree; I find it hard to carry on similar discussions on a 
> wide variety of mailing lists. I also would like to see the 
> cross-posting to OPS lists reduced. It would be better to 
> have fewer OPS mailing lists.
> 
> dbh
>

---

From: Michael Alexander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:04:02 +0200

In follow-up to the IETF 68 Mini-BOF on 
NE/Facilities/Lines/Protocols/Services Data Modeling:

Effort Summary:
===============

Modeling network of network elements (NE), facilities, lines, protocols 
and services for substantially easing development and operation of 
element manager systems (EMS), network management systems (NMS) and 
operations support systems (OSS). The framework is independent of the 
access method used, including SNMP, CLI, Netconf, Corba, CMIP, XML-RPC, 
etc.)  It covers configuration, alarms, current-historical performance, 
accounting management and security.  The frameworks builds on and reuses 
the existing base of MIBs.

Effort Sub-Projects:
====================

- Namespaces
- Object Model
- Base Meta Model
- Alarm Template Base Meta Model
- Device/Line/Service/Protocol Class Meta Model
- Device/Line/Service/Protocol Type Meta Model
- Device/Line/Service/Protocol Model
- MIB Transformation
- Model Instances three devices, one line type, one protocol and
   one service.

Draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alexan-datamod-00.txt
ppt: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-4/opsarea-4.ppt

Next Steps:
===========

This is a complex project which needs the cooperation of multiple foci 
in order to produce meta models and namespaces which very substantially 
decrease the burden of building EMS/NMS/OSSs and model protocols, 
devices etc.

At this stage there has been a fair amount of interest for:

- creating a base meta model (language)
- and to a lesser extent an object model

Skill that is in definite need is for:

- Device Class Specialists: (IP-Router, ATM, SONET/SDH, IP PBX etc.)
- Protocol Specialists: e.g. BGP, OSPF, SIP, MPLS
- Service Specialists: eg. SIP IP Voice

Provided the necessary skill comes together, and a structure is built 
that supports the required interaction for a layered modeling effort, a 
full BoF towards a Data Modeling WG at either at IETF69 or 70 would be 
targeted.

FP7 Filing:
===========

There has been substantial interest from many parties in the filing of 
this as an EU framework project 7 (FP7) project. The targeted filing 
budget sum would exceed EUR 8 Million. The number of participants would 
be >20, and can be from all over the world (NOT only the EU). Please 
send me an email if you or your organization is interested in participating.

Please use the list [email-masked] for discussion.

Best Regards,

Dr. Michael Alexander
WU Wien Dept. of Information Systems
[email-masked] / +43.1.31336.4467 GSM +43.699.1228.3586

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:26:27 +0200

> this recently with the ntdp list.

I believe there is value in having diverse discussions on an ops-area
list if we want to be one area. If we create a separate list for every
little topic that comes up, we can give up the idea to have an ops
area (or we will see excessive cross postings - and I feel we are
already on a good path towards it).

So yes, I respectfully disagree.

/js

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:20:27 +0300

> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:26 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: David Harrington; [email-masked]
> I believe there is value in having diverse discussions on an 
> ops-area list if we want to be one area. If we create a 
> separate list for every little topic that comes up, we can 
> give up the idea to have an ops area (or we will see 
> excessive cross postings - and I feel we are already on a 
> good path towards it).
> 

I agree that there is value in having discussions on the ops-area list
when the topics are of general interest for the area. In this case
however we are using the specialized lists to let people work on more
detailed proposals in specific areas of interest without copying
necessarily all participants in the area. This would actually result IMO
in a reduction of the level of cross-posting and unwanted traffic. This
method would also allow to determine more easily the level of interest
on a specific topic. If and when these folks would have some results or
recommendations they could bring those back to the ops-area lists. 

Dan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:15:50 +0200

> recommendations they could bring those back to the ops-area lists. 

Several lists related to data modeling seems odd to me and I believe
this will actually lead to more cross-postings and duplicate messages.
Why not move all traffic in meta-model, mib2rdml, ngo to ops-nm? This
would turn 4 lists into 1 and clearly reduces the chances for
cross-postings and duplicate discussions or ingorance of some other
people's work. (I believe ops-nm seems to have about 3 messages per
months recently, most of them cross-postings. ;-)

I addition, I like to suggest a policy that all announcements will go
to ops-area only; so if people want to receive general announcements
interesting for the OPS area, they should ensure that they are
properly subscribed to the ops-area list.

/js

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:09:15 +0300

Hi Juergen,

See in-line. 

Dan

> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)

> Several lists related to data modeling seems odd to me and I 
> believe this will actually lead to more cross-postings and 
> duplicate messages.
> Why not move all traffic in meta-model, mib2rdml, ngo to 
> ops-nm? This would turn 4 lists into 1 and clearly reduces 
> the chances for cross-postings and duplicate discussions or 
> ingorance of some other people's work. (I believe ops-nm 
> seems to have about 3 messages per months recently, most of 
> them cross-postings. ;-)

I propose that for the time being we stick to what was discussed in
Prague. We already created the mib2rdml and meta-model lists, let us
give them the opportunity to do their work and come again and make an
assessment of where they are by the time of the Chicago meeting. 

> 
> I addition, I like to suggest a policy that all announcements 
> will go to ops-area only; so if people want to receive 
> general announcements interesting for the OPS area, they 
> should ensure that they are properly subscribed to the ops-area list.

I agree with you on this. Actually my preference is to limit even more
the announcements to those that are relevant to the IETF work.

Dan