Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for January 8, 2009 Telechat
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Sun, 04 January 2009 17:26 UTC
Return-Path: <mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mib-doctors-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CA328C0DB; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:26:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DBC3A687C; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:26:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZK2zqe8DPscl; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC32E3A67A8; Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:26:33 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,328,1228107600"; d="scan'208";a="133033464"
Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2009 12:26:18 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jan 2009 12:26:17 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:26:14 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401276E9B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB7438E7-04E2-4BE3-A67D-098C6722AAC1@lilacglade.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for January 8, 2009 Telechat
Thread-Index: AcludLPmlwiUNodgR/W2/HwppEVifgAAEhuA
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401276D24@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <EB7438E7-04E2-4BE3-A67D-098C6722AAC1@lilacglade.org>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org, "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, ops-dir@ietf.org, IETF DNS Directorate <dns-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for January 8, 2009 Telechat
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mib-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@lilacglade.org] > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:00 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: IETF DNS Directorate; ops-dir@ietf.org; > aaa-doctors@ietf.org; MIB Doctors (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package for > January 8, 2009 Telechat > > > Hi Dan, > > Is it possible to send us the proposed charter text for > netconf and ippm? I don't have any particular concerns about > rechartering these groups, but I would be willing to look > over the text. > > Margaret > Here you go: -------------- Message ORGanization (morg) ------------------------------------------ Last Modified: 2008-12-11 Current Status: Proposed Working Group Chair(s): Randall Gellens (co-chair TBD) Applications Area Directors: Chris Newman Lisa Dusseault Application Area Advisor: Chris Newman Mailing Lists: General Discussion: morg@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/morg/current/maillist.html Description: The IETF Message Organization extensions Working Group will work on IMAP extensions that improve clients' ability to find messages or groups of messages in an IMAP mailstore. As a secondary goal, the WG will design its extensions so as to minimize client/server round trips and bandwidth overhead. In particular the Working Group is chartered to finalize and publish the following IMAP extensions as proposed standards: (a) A SORT extension specifying new sort criteria for header fields containing email addresses. This extension will be based on draft-karp-morg-sortdisplay-00.txt. (b) A SEARCH extension specifying new search criteria for header fields containing email addresses. (c) A LIST extension for returning STATUS information in LIST responses. This extension will be based on draft-melnikov-imapext-status-in-list-00.txt. (d) An extension that formalizes a way to return message counters by message context using STATUS and SEARCH commands. (e) An extension that specifies Internet-search-engine-like searching. Such searches would be more flexible (and less formally defined) than substring-based searches, and may return their results in a significant order. They may include "relevance" scores or similar information that could be useful to the user. (f) New collation algorithms such as "ignore whitespace" and "numeric, ignoring punctuation". The WG group will determine which collations are needed, taking into consideration the needs of the protocols that use the collation framework. (g) An extension that allows searching for messages within a message thread. This extension will be based on draft-gulbrandsen-imap-inthread-03.txt. (h) An extension that allows searching of multiple mailboxes at the same time (based on draft-melnikov-imapext-multimailbox-search-03.txt), or of multiple mailbox views. The WG will determine which approach (mailboxes or views) is more suitable as part of its work. Additional documents may be added this list, but only via a charter revision. There must also be demonstrable willingness in the IMAP development community to actually implement a given extension before it can be added to this charter. Revising or replacing the base IMAP4rev1 specification (RFC 3501) is out of the scope of this WG. This WG will ensure that all extensions it proposes take into account any existing problems in the base specification of IMAP, and do not make them worse nor make the problems harder to address in the future. ==== --------------------------------- Network Configuration (netconf) ================================ Last Modified: 2008-12-16 Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf Chair(s): Bert Wijnen <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Mehmet Ersue <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> Operations and Management Area Director(s): Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com> Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Operations and Management Area Advisor: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com> Technical Advisor(s): Charlie Kaufman <charliek@microsoft.com> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: netconf@ietf.org To Subscribe: netconf-request@ietf.org In Body: in msg body: subscribe Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/ Description of Working Group: Charlie Kaufman is Technical Advisor for Security Matters Configuration of networks of devices has become a critical requirement for operators in today's highly interoperable networks. Operators from large to small have developed their own mechanisms or used vendor specific mechanisms to transfer configuration data to and from a device, and for examining device state information which may impact the configuration. Each of these mechanisms may be different in various aspects, such as session establishment, user authentication, configuration data exchange, and error responses. The NETCONF Working Group is chartered to produce a protocol suitable for network configuration, with the following characteristics: - Provides retrieval mechanisms which can differentiate between configuration data and non-configuration data - Is extensible enough so that vendors will provide access to all configuration data on the device using a single protocol - Has a programmatic interface (avoids screen scraping and formatting-related changes between releases) - Uses a textual data representation, that can be easily manipulated using non-specialized text manipulation tools. - Supports integration with existing user authentication methods - Supports integration with existing configuration database systems - Supports network wide configuration transactions (with features such as locking and rollback capability) - Is as transport-independent as possible - Provides support for asynchronous notifications. The NETCONF protocol is using XML for data encoding purposes, because XML is a widely deployed standard which is supported by a large number of applications. The NETCONF protocol should be independent of the data definition language and data models used to describe configuration and state data. However, the authorization model used in the protocol is dependent on the data model. Although these issues must be fully addressed to develop standard data models, only a small part of this work will be initially addressed. This group will specify requirements for standard data models in order to fully support the NETCONF protocol, such as: - identification of principals, such as user names or distinguished names - mechanism to distinguish configuration from non-configuration data - XML namespace conventions - XML usage guidelines The initial work started in 2003 and has already been completed and was restricted to following items: a) NETCONF Protocol Specification, which defines the operational model, protocol operations, transaction model, data model requirements, security requirements, and transport layer requirements. b) NETCONF over SSH Specification: Implementation Mandatory, c) NETCONF over BEEP Specification: Implementation Optional, d) NETCONF over SOAP Specification: Implementation Optional. These documents define how the NETCONF protocol is used with each transport protocol selected by the working group, and how it meets the security and transport layer requirements of the NETCONF Protocol Specification. e) NETCONF Notification Specification, which defines mechanisms that provide an asynchronous message notification delivery service for the NETCONF protocol. NETCONF Notification is an optional capability built on top of the base NETCONF definition and provides the capabilities and operations necessary to support this service. The NETCONF notification specification has been finished now as well. In the current phase of the incremental development of NETCONF the workgroup will focus on following items: 1. Fine-grain locking: The base NETCONF protocol only provides a lock for the entire configuration datastore, which is not deemed to meet important operational and security requirements. The NETCONF working group will produce a standards-track RFC specifying a mechanism for fine-grain locking of the NETCONF configuration datastore. 2. NETCONF monitoring: It is considered best practice for IETF working groups to include management of their protocols within the scope of the solution they are providing. The NETCONF working group will produce a standards-track RFC with mechanisms allowing NETCONF itself to be used to monitor some aspects of NETCONF operation. 3. Schema advertisement: Currently the NETCONF protocol is able to advertise which protocol features are supported on a particular netconf-capable device. However, there is currently no way to discover which XML Schema are supported on the device. The NETCONF working group will produce a standards-track RFC with mechanisms making this discovery possible (this item may be merged with "NETCONF monitoring" into a single document). Note: The schema-advertisement material has been merged into the NETCONF monitoring document based on WG consensus. 4. NETCONF over TLS: Based on implementation experience there is a need for a standards track document to define NETCONF over TLS as an optional transport for the NETCONF protocol. 5. NETCONF default handling: NETCONF today does not define whether default values should be returned by the server in replies to requests for reading configuration and state data. Different clients have different needs to receive or not to receive default data. The NETCONF working group will produce a standards-track RFC defining a mechanism that allows NETCONF clients to control whether default data is returned by the netconf server. 6. NETCONF implementations have shown that the specification in RFC4741 is not 100% clear and has lead to different interpretations and implementations. Also some errors have been uncovered. So the WG will do an rfc4741bis with following constraints: - bug fixes are to be done - clarifications can be done - extensions can be done only when needed to fix bugs or inconsistencies (i.e. we are not doing a NETCONF V2) - The work can be started based on the discussion in IETF #73 (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/netconf-3.pdf). Note: A technical errata has been posted on rfc4742. If the work on rfc4741bis uncovers any additional fixes/clarifications that need to be made to rfc4742, the WG may consider to also do a rfc4742bis as part of this work-item. The following items have been identified as important but are currently not considered in scope for re-chartering and may be candidates for work when there is community consensus to take them on: - NETCONF Notification content - Access Control requirements - NETCONF access to SMI-based MIB data Goals and Milestones: Done Working Group formed Done Submit initial Netconf Protocol draft Done Submit initial Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft Done Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf Protocol draft Done Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft Done Submit final version of the Netconf Protocol draft to the IESG Done Submit final version of the Netconf over SOAP draft to the IESG Done Submit final version of the Netconf over BEEP draft to the IESG Done Submit final version of the Netconf over SSH draft to the IESG Done Update charter Done Submit first version of NETCONF Notifications document Done Begin WGLC of NETCONF Notifications document Done Submit final version of NETCONF Notifications document to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard Done -00 draft for fine Grain Locking Done -00 draft for NETCONF over TLS Done -00 draft for NETCONF Monitoring Done -00 draft for Schema Advertisement Done Early Review of client authentication approach (for NETCONF over TLS) with the security community at IETF 71 N.A. WG Last Call on Schema Advertisement after IETF72 Schema Advertisement has been merged into Monitoring Done WG Last Call on NETCONF over TLS after IETF72 Done Netconf over TLS to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards Dec 2008 WG Last Call on Fine Grain Locking after IETF73 Dec 2008 Send Partial Locking to IESG for consideration as Proposed Standards Jan 2009 Initial WG draft for with-defaults capability Feb 2009 Initial WG draft for rfc4741bis Mar 2009 WG Last Call on NETCONF Monitoring after IETF73 Apr 2009 WG Last Call on rfc4741bis Apr 2009 WG Last Call on with-defaults Jun 2009 rfc4741bis to IESG for considerations as Proposed Standard Jun 2009 with-defaults capability to IESG for considerations as Proposed Standard ------------------------------- IP Performance Metrics (ippm) -------------------------------------------- Last Modified: 2008-12-19 Status: Active Working Group Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/ippm Chair(s): Matthew Zekauskas [matt@internet2.edu] Henk Uijterwaal [henk@ripe.net] Transport Area Director(s): Magnus Westerlund magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] Lars Eggert [lars.eggert@nokia.com] Transport Area Advisor: Lars Eggert [lars.eggert@nokia.com] Mailing Lists: General Discussion: ippm@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm In Body: subscribe Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ippm/index.html Description of Working Group: The IPPM WG has developed a set of standard metrics that can be applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they can be performed by network operators, end users, or independent testing groups. It is important that the metrics not represent a value judgment (i.e. define "good" and "bad"), but rather provide unbiased quantitative measures of performance. Functions peripheral to Internet data delivery services, such as NOC/NIC services, are beyond the scope of this working group. The IPPM WG has produced documents that define specific metrics and procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. This is the current list of fundamental metrics and the existing set of derived metrics. - connectivity - one-way delay and loss - round-trip delay. - delay variation - loss patterns - packet reordering - bulk transport capacity - link bandwidth capacity - packet duplication The working group will advance these metrics along the standards track within the IETF. It will be guided by applicable IESG documents in this area. Additionally, the WG will produce Proposed Standard AS documents, comparable to applicability statements in RFC 2026, that will focus on procedures for measuring the individual metrics and how these metrics characterize features that are important to different service classes, such as bulk transport, periodic streams, packet bursts or multimedia streams. Each AS document will discuss the performance characteristics that are pertinent to a specified service class; clearly identify the set of metrics that aid in the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of testing results. The AS documents can also discuss the use of the metrics to verify performance expectations, such as SLA's, report results to specific user groups or investigate network problems. The focus is, again, to define how this should be done, not to define a value judgment. The WG may define additional statistics for its metrics if needed. Specific topics of these AS documents must be approved by the Area Directors as charter additions. The WG will work on documents describing how to compose and decompose the results of its metrics over time or space. The WG has produced protocols to enable communication among test equipment that implements the one- and two-way metrics (OWAMP and TWAMP respectively). OWAMP and TWAMP will be advanced along the standards track. Further development of these protocols will also be done inside the WG. The metrics developed by the WG were developed inside an active measurement context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics produce their own traffic. However, most metrics can be used inside a passive context as well. No work is planned is this area though, this may be changed with AD approval. The intent of the WG is to cooperate with other appropriate standards bodies and forums (such as ATIS IIF, ITU-T SG 12, 13 and 15, MEF) to promote consistent approaches and metrics. Within the IETF process, IPPM metrics definitions will be subject to as rigorous a scrutiny for usefulness, clarity, and accuracy as other protocol standards. The IPPM WG will interact with other areas of IETF activity whose scope intersect with the requirement of these specific metrics. The WG will, on request, provide input to other IETF WG on the use of these metrics. ------------------------ _______________________________________________ MIB-DOCTORS mailing list MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
- [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: PRELIMINARY Agenda and Package … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [OPS-DIR] FW: PRELIMINARY Agend… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)