RE: [imss] Vancouver Minutes (DRAFT)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
> Roger Cummings
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 20:20
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [imss] Vancouver Minutes (DRAFT)
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> Thanks for posting the minutes so promptly.
> 
> Two minor points:
> 
> 1) Bert made a suggestion that a message is sent to the 
> Netconf mailing list soliciting interest in helping with the schema 
> definition. Is that an AI to you or I?
> 

We can go back to listen to the audio if we want to, but I think I mentioned
that I suggested to send a msg to netconf list to inform them about your
FLIP draft and sollicit partcipation/help.

I think I also mentioned that doing a XML schema might be an option,
but if that should be standardized right away is to be determined.
NetConf sofar has not gotten approval from the ADs to do any standardization
work foe XML Schemas. Once we have a schema definition and once we see
people implement/play with it/use it, then we can discuss if we can or
should standardize.

They also are discussing events. And since you seem to have a requirement,
it would be good to clearly specify them and see how well they match with
requirements that others claim in this space.

Bert
> 2) I'd like to modify the last sentence to read " The FLIP concept and
> suggested use of netconf will be discussed further at T11 before the
> next imss meeting." The focus for December has to be resolving FAIS
> Letter Ballot comments, and if that means that the FLIP discussion
> doesn't get done until later, that's the way it should be.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> > Behalf Of [e-mail]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:28 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [imss] Vancouver Minutes (DRAFT)
> > 
> > Please send any corrections, etc. to the list.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > 
> > Internet and Management Support for Storage (imss) WG Meeting 
> > - Vancouver, Canada Tuesday, November 8, 2005: 1740-1840 
> > Minutes - DRAFT
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Administrivia, agenda bashing, draft status review, etc.: 15 min
> > 		David L. Black, EMC (new imss WG chair)
> > 	Blue sheets
> > 	Note Well
> > 	Milestones (see WG charter page on IETF web site)
> > 	WG Draft status
> > 		- IP over FC draft is in IETF Last Call
> > 		- FAM and NSM MIBs should go to IETF Last Call by the
> > 			end of next week (Keith McCloghrie and 
> > Bert Wijnen
> > 			will coordinate to make this happen).
> > 		- Remaining 3 WG MIBs will go to WG Last Call by end
> > 			of November.
> > 
> > --> Record status
> > 
> > T11.5 Status, Fibre Channel MIBs under development: 20 min
> > 		Roger Cummings (Symantec, T11.5 chair)
> > 
> > See slides.
> > 
> > T11.5 has 3 more MIBs that will be sent to the imss WG - Zone 
> > Server MIB, Registered State Change Notification MIB, and 
> > Fabric Configuration Server MIB.  The imss WG's current Apr 
> > 06 milestone to determine what to do next will be replaced by 
> > a milestone (later in 2006) to work on these 3 MIBs.  These 3 
> > MIBs may not be ready for handoff to imss prior to the next 
> > IETF meeting, but the mechanism used in Paris for the VF MIB 
> > can be reused - the imss WG can decide to accept the drafts 
> > as official WG drafts subject to a pending T11 formal votes 
> > to pass change control to the IETF.
> > 
> > T11.5 is considering assigning MIB development responsibility 
> > to protocol development work groups instead of the current 
> > approach of having a separate group that works on MIBs.  This 
> > will be discussed at the T11 meetings in early December.
> > 
> > FLIP (FAIS Line Interface Protocol) Conceptual Discussion: 25 min
> > 		Roger Cummings (Symantec, T11.5 chair)
> > 	 draft-cummings-imss-flip-00.txt
> > 
> > See presentation.  Netconf appears promising for the 
> > configuration aspects of FLIP, but currently contains no 
> > support for events or notifications from the configured 
> > device.  Use of netconf would result in functionality at the 
> > level of the configuration model instead of a 1-1 match 
> > between FAIS API calls and RPCs.  The required 
> > event/notification mechanism needs to be capable of carrying 
> > a fair amount of structured information - it is somewhat 
> > analogous to the use of COPS to ask a policy decision point 
> > "I just received this RSVP reservation request, what should I 
> > do about it?".  There are also concerns about effective 
> > transmission of bulk binary data (encoding in XML is 
> > unworkable, but encapsulation or wrapping in XML is probably 
> > ok).  The netconf group is not currently standardizing 
> > schemas, but will want/need to, so this could be a timely 
> > interaction between imss and netconf.
> > 
> > The FLIP concept and suggested use of netconf will be 
> > discussed further in the early December T11 meetings.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > imss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
> 

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss