FW: Nomcom call for candidates

From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 2 14:00:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B7C28C1DB; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:00:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE0B28C17A for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.252 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 Dl+2rp7Xi4Lz for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.softplan.com.br (server99.softplan.com.br [201.47.73.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A60A28C171 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from soft050008 ([200.237.245.86] RDNS failed) by mail.softplan.com.br with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:59:29 -0300 From: "Daniel" To: Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:59:26 -0300 Message-ID: <980E3EF259054832B6BB2B57197E811C@softplan.com.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckNPsjiqm+5CuFoRVmy+gjKq8PmUQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3959 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2008 20:59:29.0003 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA4E43B0:01C90D3E] Subject: [OPSAWG] PHD research topic ... X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1237022029==" Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1237022029== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C90D25.A4F63640" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C90D25.A4F63640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would like to ask members of this discussion list about some suggestions for a PHD thesis. My master degree was about MPLS security in 2002. PHD thesis must have cientific contributions of unprecedented character (state of the art), as the IETF working groups discuss state of the art topics, I imagine that lots of people have great ideas for academic works. I am interested in Network Managment, E-Comerce and Security areas but others are also welcome. My technical expertise is in the IT infrastructure and security areas. In Managment area I have depply knowledge in ITIL v3 foundation, PMP (Project Managment Professional) and ISO27001/20000. Thanks, Daniel ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C90D25.A4F63640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to ask members of this discussion list = about some suggestions for a PHD thesis.

My master degree was about MPLS security in = 2002.

PHD thesis must have cientific contributions of unprecedented character (state of the art), as the IETF working groups = discuss

state of the art topics, I imagine that lots of = people have great ideas for academic works.

I am interested in Network Managment, E-Comerce and = Security areas but others are also = welcome.

My technical expertise is in the IT infrastructure = and security areas. In Managment area I have depply knowledge in ITIL v3 = foundation, PMP (Project Managment Professional) and = ISO27001/20000.

Thanks,

Daniel

------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C90D25.A4F63640-- --===============1237022029== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg --===============1237022029==-- From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 5 13:01:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA183A6B26; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6C93A6B26 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 1LQRESewX9v1 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from WA4EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (outbound-wa4.frontbridge.com [216.32.181.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68AB3A6AA0 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 13:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail153-wa4-R.bigfish.com (10.8.14.250) by WA4EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.8.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:01:06 +0000 Received: from mail153-wa4 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail153-wa4-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E5E10C0712 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:01:06 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VS-12(zzf67M936fQzzzzz2fh6bh43j67h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 6:0 Received: by mail153-wa4 (MessageSwitch) id 1220644865380728_26592; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:01:05 +0000 (UCT) Received: from plss1399.corp.sprint.com (unknown [144.230.162.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail153-wa4.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249B3FA0052 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plswh02a.ad.sprint.com (PLSWH02A.corp.sprint.com [144.226.242.131]) by plss1399.corp.sprint.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m85JstMQ025753 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 14:54:55 -0500 (CDT) Received: from PDAWM04C.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.111.27]) by plswh02a.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.242.131]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:01:04 -0500 From: "Seely, Ted A [CTO]" To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:01:02 -0500 Thread-Topic: Begin WG Last Call on draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-alarm-00.txt Thread-Index: AckPkh81vFwpJywDbUOf03j0ejKKDA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] Begin WG Last Call on draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-alarm-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hello, The Chairs are initiating a two week last call on draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-alarm-00.txt. Please provide feedback and comments to the list no later than September 19th. Thank you, Scott & Ted _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 15:57:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21513A6C8B; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3CB3A6C8B for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.759 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.760, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 cLbGRYAc6DK5 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B843A6A0E for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CafQ1a0090vyq2s58mxrNS; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:57:51 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Cmxr1a0084HwxpC3RmxrvM; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:57:51 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=fyD4h-OnTGfQGbMWATgA:9 a=MvgPaPMM9IBDZd5ZbPeS5NYfxAMA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:57:51 -0400 Message-ID: <00c201c912cf$7cb95220$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckSz3vbFi6ZkswlSsOpHAsrpIMZXQ== Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: migration path X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The Migration Path section of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management talsk about the extensibility of the management approach. It is not clear just what is being recommended. Can somebody provide an example? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 16:02:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AA63A6A49; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240D13A6872 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:01:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.011 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.588, 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 e3mKst+5nb6i for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4422E3A6780 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by QMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ClCU1a02R0QuhwU56n21ky; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:02:01 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Cn1q1a00Z4HwxpC3Nn1rsR; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:01:51 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=NMrINZnJMnS8JTlBL2MA:9 a=f0tyMrt7Q8olFy2kEhEA:7 a=zp2Z0P1Tl5peSk44Kt2fW7H8k3cA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:02:01 -0400 Message-ID: <00c301c912d0$11c76eb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckS0BFsQfnPR0gqQJCAIzPRtsxA0Q== Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Impact on Network Operation X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The section of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management about "Impact on Network Operation" discusses changing configuration and not updating the configuration database. Is this appropriate content for this document for protocol designers, or is it more apprpriate to operational BCP? Please look at the wording that surrounds this DISCUSS, and indicate whether you think this paragraph should be removed or enhanced. If you think it should be enhanced, can you please provide proposed text? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 16:17:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDE83A6997; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AB93A69B7 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.553, 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 7WRNCbM2XWEJ for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D943A68EC for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CeXa1a0020xGWP859nH7M3; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:17:07 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CnH71a00A4HwxpC3YnH7gU; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:17:07 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=GmkOS2wHMSF7TSpLmAYA:9 a=22U6GWosod1ryvvoEuyv15Y8N7QA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:17:07 -0400 Message-ID: <00c701c912d2$2daf5ff0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckS0i1I3uce2v2ASYi/Py6hj81Jfg== Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Management Considerations X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The "Management Considerations" section of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management asks whether this section should discuss P2P versus centralized management. Should this be discussed in this document, and if so, can you provide some proposed text? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 16:19:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6D93A6997; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9283A6997 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:19:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.522, 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 695E2CWY859f for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E423A67DB for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by QMTA09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CltG1a00A0vyq2s59nKCsw; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:19:12 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CnKC1a00J4HwxpC3RnKCVK; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:19:12 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=nJDYK3K4aEUqHzjpnGgA:9 a=BgncRFuBzxBT-drM85MIrBl08MsA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:19:12 -0400 Message-ID: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckS0nfLxgDjpnJxQiSUzxihfL9RWQ== Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The section on Performance Management in draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management lumps device mgmt, network mgmt, and service mgmt together. Should these be separated? If so, can you provide proposed text changes to separate these? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 16:21:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53AD3A688F; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22D93A688F for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_05=-1.11] 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 0d0jGYwdGLQS for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:21:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1DEA3A67EF for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CcNL1a00q0vyq2s53nMU8w; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:21:28 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CnMT1a00R4HwxpC3RnMTCY; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:21:28 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=6dlmADDblOIA:10 a=J9hWwH50lbEA:10 a=hv8ZhDretrq7zieNbJkA:9 a=Aq1e2drM4irEw6WNRZZ_eOg_IAwA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:21:27 -0400 Message-ID: <00c901c912d2$c9264390$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckS0shlrTle5E7/SZu8DMArPWblew== Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The document discusses possible standard notifications for security events identified in a security considerations section, but provides no examples of protocol specifications that do this. Are there examples other than SNMPv3? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 9 16:26:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9137B3A68D9; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:26:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C178D3A68D9 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.507, 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 0f6TtirYOKDx for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72D33A688F for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CZwB1a00C0xGWP854nSbwW; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:26:35 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id CnSa1a0024HwxpC3YnSauW; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:26:34 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=zASF5TOk-smhr203oDQA:9 a=psQZjlnaCsMj28PfVEMZkwauCbEA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:26:34 -0400 Message-ID: <00ca01c912d3$7f985960$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AckS038E5xxP99zaSR2Q4ENouQtqGQ== Subject: [OPSAWG] checklist items X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi, draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management is supposed to have a checklist in an appendix that protocol designers and reviewers can use to check whether a document does consider operations and management adequately for a standard. This is a poll: which points in the guidelines should have a checklist item? David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 10 06:04:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E7128C237; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA5328C236; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.324, 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 XUnMKa3Mik65; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 56E2A28C22A; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:04:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,372,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="121180127" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Sep 2008 09:04:48 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,372,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="276242659" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 10 Sep 2008 09:04:46 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:03:47 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Advice on draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management Thread-Index: AckTRaks3zN3mlyqTECZ+ieHXzooMA== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "ops-area (IETF)" , , "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" , Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Advice on draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org The editor of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management is requiring input on an number of open issues in the document. The questions are listed in the following archived mails: - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00274.html - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00275.html - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00276.html - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00277.html - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00278.html - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg00279.html Please help the editor by providing guidance on the questions about, and by reading the document and providing your comments. The document is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-man agement-04.txt Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 12 13:24:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5F03A6B3E; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534D43A6B3E for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 PBQF6EA3WJy2 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from VA3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (outbound-va3.frontbridge.com [216.32.180.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D043A690F for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail91-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.251) by VA3EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.7.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:24:18 +0000 Received: from mail91-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail91-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF9DD406D8 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:24:17 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VS-66(zzf67M8f9KJ936fQzzzz1033ILz30ih6bh43j62h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 1:0 X-FB-SS: 5,5, Received: by mail91-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1221251055969576_9546; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:24:15 +0000 (UCT) Received: from pdas1404.corp.sprint.com (unknown [144.229.32.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail91-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65EF106006A for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:24:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plswh04a.ad.sprint.com (plswh04a.corp.sprint.com [144.226.251.24]) by pdas1404.corp.sprint.com (Switch-3.3.2/Switch-3.3.2) with ESMTP id m8CKNmjP019514 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:23:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from PDAWM04C.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.111.27]) by plswh04a.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.251.24]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:23:27 -0500 From: "Seely, Ted A [CTO]" To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:23:25 -0500 Thread-Topic: Nomcom call for candidates Thread-Index: AckU+Tx9mOHSfvH/R6mE3sR/303/mAAHCwb7 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080912164811.74CF63A6C4E@core3.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] FW: Nomcom call for candidates X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1166414980==" Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org --===============1166414980== Content-Language: en Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C4F047FD8E0Etedaseelysprintcom_" --_000_C4F047FD8E0Etedaseelysprintcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ------ Forwarded Message From: NomCom Chair Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:48:11 -0500 To: Working Group Chairs Subject: Nomcom call for candidates The message below was just sent to the IETF-Annoucne list. However, it order to get to as many people as possible, I am asking WG chairs a favor. Please forward the message to your working groups. Thank you, Joel M. Halpern The 2008-9 IETF Nominating Committee needs your help. We have started getting candidates. If we are going to do our job in time, we have only 3 more weeks to get enough candidates to have a reasonable pool for all the jobs. At the moment, we do not have a reasonable pool for any jobs. If you are willing to serve, please nominate yourself. If there is someone you think would do a good job, please nominate them. The web site at: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/08 Has the list of positions we are seeking people for, as well as tools for providing both nominations and feedback. Alternatively, you can submit nominations by sending email to me. Please help us. Thank you, Joel M. Halpern jmh@joelhalpern.com nomcom-chair@ietf.org ------ End of Forwarded Message --_000_C4F047FD8E0Etedaseelysprintcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FW: Nomcom call for candidates

------ Forwarded Message

From: NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:48:11 -0500
To: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@= ietf.org>
Subject: Nomcom call for candidates

The message below was just sent to the IETF= -Annoucne list.
However, it order to get to as many people as possible, I am asking WG
chairs a favor. Please forward the message to your working groups.
Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern

The 2008-9 IETF Nominating Committee needs your help.
We have started getting candidates.
If we are going to do our job in time, we have only 3 more weeks to get
enough candidates to have a reasonable pool for all the jobs.
At the moment, we do not have a reasonable pool for any jobs.

If you are willing to serve, please nominate yourself.
If there is someone you think would do a good job, please nominate them.
The web site at:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/08
Has the list of positions we are seeking people for, as well as tools for providing both nominations and feedback.

Alternatively, you can submit nominations by sending email to me.

Please help us.

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern
jmh@joelhalpern.com
nomcom-chair@ietf.org

X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9DB3A68D9; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF993A68D9 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:45:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_50=0.001] 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 kvSrwImd1H-N for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E878C3A67EA for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:45:26 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=OsT+AkEE1We5HXe5fN9d/7FkLYuEawY0TXk9ym5gBwP7tmmGAheWpbQ7Ka36mVgF; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [64.105.137.149] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KeIKU-00033H-M2 for opsawg@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:45:34 -0400 Message-ID: <002d01c91531$f3985f80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <00c901c912d2$c9264390$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88858bc2ddbf51b90e45528b9ab29fe5d0ad27f94b39a219342350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 64.105.137.149 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "David Harrington" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 4:21 PM > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security ... > The document discusses possible standard notifications for security > events identified in a security considerations section, but provides > no examples of protocol specifications that do this. Are there > examples other than SNMPv3? ... ITU X.736? Randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 06:41:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B99D3A6AFD; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:41:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF733A6AFD for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:41:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.276, 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 kLf92TPvfNMS for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AF33A6991 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,401,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="143610694" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 09:41:27 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,401,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="272096948" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 09:41:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:41:26 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00ca01c912d3$7f985960$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] checklist items Thread-Index: AckS038E5xxP99zaSR2Q4ENouQtqGQEZC3GA References: <00ca01c912d3$7f985960$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] checklist items X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org (contributor opinion) Looking at the current structure of the document all section 3 should be included. Section 4 should be present under the form of a query of what protocol operations are expected to be performed relative to the new protocol or technology, and what protocols and data models are expected to be in place or recommended to ensure for interoperable management. Section 5 should be present as a question about whether an operational considerations and/or manageability section is part of the document. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:27 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] checklist items > > Hi, > > draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management is supposed to > have a checklist in an appendix that protocol designers and > reviewers can use to check whether a document does consider > operations and management adequately for a standard. > > This is a poll: which points in the guidelines should have a > checklist item? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 07:10:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC2E3A68B4; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:10:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3373A6B1B for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:10:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.328 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, 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 HaZ-MduOPseP for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:10:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 66A293A6B03 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:10:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,401,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="121716624" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 10:10:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,401,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="272115539" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 10:10:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:10:12 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00c901c912d2$c9264390$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security Thread-Index: AckS0shlrTle5E7/SZu8DMArPWblewEZq4gQ References: <00c901c912d2$c9264390$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Out of the IETF the ITU-T X.722 Definition of Management Information (DMI) standard defines a securityServiceOrMechanismAlarm. ITU-T X.736 defines the SECURITY ALARM REPORTING FUNCTION. Within the IETF would not syslog be an appropriate example? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:21 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security > > Hi, > > The document discusses possible standard notifications for > security events identified in a security considerations > section, but provides no examples of protocol specifications > that do this. Are there examples other than SNMPv3? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 08:38:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C50728C0FE; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D8A28C162 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, 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 A2zdgcpiM1Uv for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT) 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 E8F8728C0FE for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="121730535" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 11:38:01 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="272171538" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 11:38:00 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:37:42 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management Thread-Index: AckS0nfLxgDjpnJxQiSUzxihfL9RWQEb/NDQ References: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org (contributor opinion) I am not sure that the separation is necessary. We are dealing mostly with protocol documents that define new protocols or protocol extensions. We are concerned how the performance of the respective protocols is being defined and managed. What is important in my opinion is to list what are the key performance metrics (or mention the need to define such metrics) and to be clear what hooks for performance management must be defined within the protocol. Here is a slight re-write of the existing text on these lines: ----------- From a manageability point of view it is important to determine how well a network deploying the protocol or technology defined in the document is doing. In order to do this the network operators need to consider information that would be useful to determine the performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target protocol. In many cases the performance metrics are generic and already defined by work done in the IPPM WG, or BMWG for example, but in some cases new metrics need to be defined (example [SIP Performance Metrics] in PMOL). It would be useful if the document would identify the need for such new metrics. Here is a list of questions that could be answered and items that can be Discussed related to performance management in a manageability section: - What are the principal performance factors that need to be looked at when measuring the operational performance of the protocol implementations? Is it important to measure setup times? throughput? quality versus throughput? interruptions? end-to-end throughput? end- to-end quality? hop-to-hop throughput? - Consider scalability, such as whether performance will be affected by the number of protocol connections. If so, then it might be useful to provide information about the maximum number of table entries that should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an implementation can support, the current number of instances, and the expected behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not what makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not managed-protocol- dependent, then it should be left for the management-protocol data modelers to decide. For example, VLAN identifiers have a range of 1..4095 because of the VLAN standards. A MIB implementing a VLAN table should be able to support 4096 entries because the content being modeled requires it. - Consider the capability of determining the operational activity, such as the number of message in and the messages out, the number of received messages rejected due to format problems, the expected behaviors when a malformed message is received. - Consider the expected behaviors for counters - what is a reasonable maximum value for expected usage? should they stop counting at the maximum value and retain the maximum value, or should they rollover? How can users determine if a rollover has occurred, and how can users determine if more than one rollover has occurred? - What performance management information should be maintained across reboots of the device, or restarts of the management system? - Could events, such as hot-swapping a blade in a chassis, cause discontinuities in information? Does this make any difference in evaluating the performance of a protocol? - Consider whether multiple management applications will share counters; if so, then no one management application should be allowed to reset the value to zero since this will impact other applications. ------------- I have deleted the last two paragraphs which do not seem essential to me. Of course, it's just my opinion. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:19 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management > > Hi, > > The section on Performance Management in > draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management lumps device > mgmt, network mgmt, and service mgmt together. Should these > be separated? > > If so, can you provide proposed text changes to separate these? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 09:01:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B203A6B8D; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA923A6B72 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.336 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.263, 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 mvgkXjCnwX15 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 68AEE3A6B8D for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:01:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="121734161" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:01:59 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="272188244" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:01:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:01:57 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00c701c912d2$2daf5ff0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Management Considerations Thread-Index: AckS0i1I3uce2v2ASYi/Py6hj81JfgEePhbg References: <00c701c912d2$2daf5ff0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Management Considerations X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org (contributor opinion) I confess that it Is not clear to me what P2P management is supposed to mean. Is it really P2P vs. centralized or rather centralized vs. distributed. If it is the latest I would rather see this discussion show up in Section 3.1 where we talk about operational models. Centralized is in my mind something the model where for example routers implement MIB modules specific to routing protocols, and a centralized NMS queries (sometimes remotely) the agents in routers implementing the MIB. Distributed could mean the IP phones model for example which typically auto-configure through proprietary configuration files after booting up and getting basic addressing via DHCP and implement reporting using RTCP-XR, RAQMON or SIP. Of course, there are more complex models like hierarchical models or hybrid models (CAPWAP where part of the distribution is realized by the managed protocol). Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:17 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Management Considerations > > Hi, > > The "Management Considerations" section of > draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management asks whether this > section should discuss P2P versus centralized management. > > Should this be discussed in this document, and if so, can you > provide some proposed text? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 09:04:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1640A3A6B8A; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78733A6B8A for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, 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 mCbNxDCwKpgU for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 99D113A68A2 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:04:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="121734589" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:04:46 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="279231986" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:04:45 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:04:44 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00c301c912d0$11c76eb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Impact on Network Operation Thread-Index: AckS0BFsQfnPR0gqQJCAIzPRtsxA0QEfJCRg References: <00c301c912d0$11c76eb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Impact on Network Operation X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org (contributor opinion) I believe that both two last DISCUSSes in this section do not belong in this document and I would rather suggest to take out the respective paragraphs. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:02 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Impact on Network Operation > > Hi, > > The section of draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management > about "Impact on Network Operation" discusses changing > configuration and not updating the configuration database. Is > this appropriate content for this document for protocol > designers, or is it more apprpriate to operational BCP? > > Please look at the wording that surrounds this DISCUSS, and > indicate whether you think this paragraph should be removed > or enhanced. If you think it should be enhanced, can you > please provide proposed text? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 09:08:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E2C28C160; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0247528C120 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, 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 eloqnWWgS9Pz for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76F928C11D for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:08:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="134844355" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:08:26 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,402,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="279234504" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 15 Sep 2008 12:08:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:08:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <00c201c912cf$7cb95220$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: migration path Thread-Index: AckSz3vbFi6ZkswlSsOpHAsrpIMZXQEfXI1w References: <00c201c912cf$7cb95220$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: migration path X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org (contributor opinion) There are two paragraphs in this section. The first one is fine IMO. The second one is the one you are asking about I believe. I read here something about extensibility of data models, and this seems to me to be more an issue for the data model language definition and design, and not something for the managed protocol to care about. I can live without this second paragraph. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:58 AM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: migration path > > Hi, > > The Migration Path section of > draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management talsk about the > extensibility of the management approach. It is not clear > just what is being recommended. Can somebody provide an example? > > David Harrington > dbharrington@comcast.net > ietfdbh@comcast.net > dharrington@huawei.com > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 09:43:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36CC3A6BAC; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:43:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0F3A6BA5 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:43:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 ZAQCsgZvG6V1 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344833A6BAC for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D55C0026; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:22 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Wt5NGY94IZe; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC97C0027; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 455B86CA9EA; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:43:16 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Message-ID: <20080915164316.GA7284@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , David Harrington , opsawg@ietf.org References: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Here is a list of questions that could be answered and items that can be > > - Consider scalability, such as whether performance will be affected by > the number of protocol connections. If so, then it might be useful > to provide information about the maximum number of table entries that > should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an implementation > can support, the current number of instances, and the expected > behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the > implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling > independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not what > makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not managed-protocol- > dependent, then it should be left for the management-protocol data > modelers to decide. For example, VLAN identifiers have a range of > 1..4095 because of the VLAN standards. A MIB implementing a VLAN > table should be able to support 4096 entries because the content > being modeled requires it. I am not sure the VLAN identifier space is a good example given the recent trend in the IEEE to extend this identifier space by treating 1..4095 as global identifiers and numbers > 4095 as local identifiers. The notion of a "maximum number" has often been wrong for something that is successful and from a modeling point hard constraints should really be introduced with great care. This document might not be the place to spell this out - but the text above can perhaps be mis-understood in a way that adding constraints makes sense. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 14:08:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4D43A6B49; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8B33A6B49 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:08:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.510, 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 ifVV3vlXwEt0 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F783A6AC4 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F5t11a00L17dt5G5598TWx; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:08:27 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id F98S1a00S4HwxpC3Z98SWD; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:08:27 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=wzUukCfJOLIA:10 a=drJWij4EBkEA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6mLrts9BBghCz3Ri0aoA:9 a=tq1cR2NoR9nawU-WOOEsIYzBpogA:4 a=4dyfk4FV-b8A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=HOt-SvZ3x1UA:10 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Romascanu, Dan $Dan$'" , References: <00c901c912d2$c9264390$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:08:26 -0400 Message-ID: <040f01c91777$329459e0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AckS0shlrTle5E7/SZu8DMArPWblewEZq4gQAAXL03A= Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org syslog content is not standardized, only the protocol and transports. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 10:10 AM > To: David Harrington; opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security > > Out of the IETF the ITU-T X.722 Definition of Management Information > (DMI) standard defines a securityServiceOrMechanismAlarm. ITU-T X.736 > defines the SECURITY ALARM REPORTING FUNCTION. Within the > IETF would not > syslog be an appropriate example? > > Dan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org > > [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington > > Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:21 AM > > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > Subject: [OPSAWG] guidelines: standard notification for security > > > > Hi, > > > > The document discusses possible standard notifications for > > security events identified in a security considerations > > section, but provides no examples of protocol specifications > > that do this. Are there examples other than SNMPv3? > > > > David Harrington > > dbharrington@comcast.net > > ietfdbh@comcast.net > > dharrington@huawei.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 18:32:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DB63A6B22; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:32:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA173A6B22 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:32:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.492, 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 6-Q2hmq4WKGM for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A583A6AA2 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.52]) by QMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FCB81a00317dt5G53DYnNR; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:32:47 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FDYm1a00C4HwxpC3ZDYnVM; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:32:47 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=s6AU5y3aK2EA:10 a=ZfQLxBxlWNwA:10 a=j3Z76cjpAAAA:8 a=fA-I6vbj-pHwkhOhqm4A:9 a=vjDArsjcCvJaRHnbA1cA:7 a=boj5lu5ldpkIDuvcHVIFyo8SGOEA:4 a=zeshHG33Dl4A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=gi0PWCVxevcA:10 From: "David Harrington" To: , "'Romascanu, Dan $Dan$'" References: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <20080915164316.GA7284@elstar.local> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:32:46 -0400 Message-ID: <046801c9179c$1fecf610$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <20080915164316.GA7284@elstar.local> Thread-Index: AckXUiyc7WEFh31yQaa6GeeX8rDpegASbItg Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org I think keeping the VLAN modeling could be good for explaining how models whould make "protocol" sense for the protocol being modeled. But it would also be useful to point out that constraints could be misjudged if a protocol becomes more successful than expected. There is an engineering tradeoff involved. I think both points are valid considerations. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:43 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: David Harrington; opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > Here is a list of questions that could be answered and > items that can be > > > > - Consider scalability, such as whether performance will > be affected by > > the number of protocol connections. If so, then it > might be useful > > to provide information about the maximum number of table > entries that > > should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an > implementation > > can support, the current number of instances, and the expected > > behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the > > implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling > > independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not what > > makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not managed-protocol- > > dependent, then it should be left for the > management-protocol data > > modelers to decide. For example, VLAN identifiers have > a range of > > 1..4095 because of the VLAN standards. A MIB implementing a VLAN > > table should be able to support 4096 entries because the content > > being modeled requires it. > > I am not sure the VLAN identifier space is a good example given the > recent trend in the IEEE to extend this identifier space by treating > 1..4095 as global identifiers and numbers > 4095 as local identifiers. > The notion of a "maximum number" has often been wrong for something > that is successful and from a modeling point hard constraints should > really be introduced with great care. This document might not be the > place to spell this out - but the text above can perhaps be > mis-understood in a way that adding constraints makes sense. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 15 23:06:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B313A6B4F; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127FD3A6B29 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, 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 tgjesnTweY3A for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB593A6B4F for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:05:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,406,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="143726947" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2008 02:06:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,406,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="279667168" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2008 02:06:09 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:06:06 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <046801c9179c$1fecf610$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management Thread-Index: AckXUiyc7WEFh31yQaa6GeeX8rDpegASbItgAAk5i7A= References: <00c801c912d2$783dadb0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <20080915164316.GA7284@elstar.local> <046801c9179c$1fecf610$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "David Harrington" , Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org The case is a very good example for both situations, with the evolution of the VLAN space leading to the need to extend the model with new objects, as SMI rules do not allow extensions in range or size on the same object. The recommendation in the document should be data-modeling language independent, with the core recommendation being that the protocol document should make clear the limitations implicit within the protocol and behavior when limits are exceeded. If VLANs were defined in the IETF I would expect the RFC that define them to mention that from a version to the other the limits derived from VLAN range and structure have changes and new/modified objects are probably needed in the data models. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:33 AM > To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management > > I think keeping the VLAN modeling could be good for > explaining how models whould make "protocol" sense for the > protocol being modeled. > But it would also be useful to point out that constraints > could be misjudged if a protocol becomes more successful than > expected. There is an engineering tradeoff involved. I think > both points are valid considerations. > > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > > [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 12:43 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: David Harrington; opsawg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] guidelines: Performance Management > > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > wrote: > > > > > Here is a list of questions that could be answered and > > items that can be > > > > > > - Consider scalability, such as whether performance will > > be affected by > > > the number of protocol connections. If so, then it > > might be useful > > > to provide information about the maximum number of table > > entries that > > > should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an > > implementation > > > can support, the current number of instances, and the expected > > > behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the > > > implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling > > > independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not > what > > > makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not > managed-protocol- > > > dependent, then it should be left for the > > management-protocol data > > > modelers to decide. For example, VLAN identifiers have > > a range of > > > 1..4095 because of the VLAN standards. A MIB implementing a > VLAN > > > table should be able to support 4096 entries because the > content > > > being modeled requires it. > > > > I am not sure the VLAN identifier space is a good example given the > > recent trend in the IEEE to extend this identifier space by treating > > 1..4095 as global identifiers and numbers > 4095 as local > identifiers. > > The notion of a "maximum number" has often been wrong for something > > that is successful and from a modeling point hard > constraints should > > really be introduced with great care. This document might > not be the > > place to spell this out - but the text above can perhaps be > > mis-understood in a way that adding constraints makes sense. > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > > > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 16 05:34:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F23228C182; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706703A68FE for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:34:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.725 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.524, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 VC25sAfVI6ok for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F52728C182 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:34:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F408BC0038; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8t2BpvRXGUMy; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903EDC0014; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5BCF76CEA98; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:51 +0200 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: "Seely, Ted A [CTO]" Message-ID: <20080916123451.GA761@elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de> Mail-Followup-To: "Seely, Ted A [CTO]" , "opsawg@ietf.org" References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Begin WG Last Call on draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-alarm-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 03:01:02PM -0500, Seely, Ted A [CTO] wrote: > The Chairs are initiating a two week last call on > draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-alarm-00.txt. > > Please provide feedback and comments to the list no later than September > 19th. I have read the document and below are my comments. 1) I think the title and the abstract should better indicate what the scope fo the document is. As far as I understand it, it is all about representing X.733 alarms in SYSLOG messages. So perhaps the title should be "Representing ITU X.733 Alarms in SYSLOG" and the abstract should read "This document describes how to represent X.733 alarm information in SYSLOG. [...]". 2) The last sentence of section 1 is confusig; the document really maps ITU perceived severity to SYSLOG severity and not the other way round. So I suggest to replace [...] This memo defines a set of SD-PARAM to support logging and defines a mapping of syslog severity to the severity of the alarm. with [...] This memo defines a set of SD-PARAM to support logging and defines a mapping of ITU X.733 perceived security values to SYSLOG severity values. 3) I think the mapping (currently section 1.2) should not be part of the introduction. I suggest to merge sections 1 and 1.1 into one section and to make section 1.2 section 2. 4) Section 2 in the current ID should spell out what the name of the SD-ID is. The syslog document does a fine job in putting the name of SD-IDs and SD-PARAMs in double quotes. I suggest you follow the style used by the SYSLOG specs - and I particularly also like the examples at the end of an SD-ID definition. 5) I fail to see the difference between alarmedResource and resourceMapping. Quoting from the two definitions: This item uniquely identifies the resource under alarm within the scope of a network element. This item uniquely identifies the resource under alarm within the scope of a network element. OK, the resourceMapping has an additional constraint requiring this to be an OID or follow similar semantics (I am not quite sure what that means - does this still imply the OID format? And how is the OID represented in the first place?). I am not sure how useful this is in practice. Perhaps some examples would help me to find both useful. 6) The usage of the TC labels makes sense. This of course assumes that the labels are never changed. The SMIv2 actually allows to change labels (although this is a really bad idea in most cases). Since you import labels from IANA maintained modules, perhaps IANA should be aware that these labels have significance and should not be changed. OK, I am making up a story here but I thought I at least mention that there is this implicit assumption here that the labels of enumerations are somewhat stable. 7) I think some text should be added to better describe the relationship to X.733 (what subset of X.733 is covered by the new SD-ID?) and RFC 3877 (how does the information captured in the SD-ID relate to the information captured in the RFC 3877 MIB modules?). 8) I am not sure how to interpret the last paragraph in the security considerations. SYSLOG in general does not seem to have a notion who the receiver is unless you run it over a secure transport. And even if I am lucky to know the identity of the receiver (well I actually can only reasonably know the identity of the next hop which might be a proxy), then does the paragraph require that the whole SD-ID is removed from the message or only selected SD-PARAM or is the whole message dropped? 9) You might want to update the acknowledgement to include OPSAWG. 10) The reference X.X should be replaced with something meaningful and references need to be updated. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Fri Sep 19 07:15:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B69028C132; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC00F3A6802; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.42 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.179, 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 i3Fkqwvn+g7h; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 F3AAB3A6862; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:14:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,429,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="122286925" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2008 10:14:55 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2008 10:14:53 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:14:51 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Mail Problems Thread-Index: AckaXfJaz1KltMUORmq3BbOwrj8wBQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "IESG" , "IAB" , , "ops-area (IETF)" , , , , , , "IETF DNS Directorate" , , , "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" , Subject: [OPSAWG] Mail Problems X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org My company mail servers were in trouble for about thirteen hours starting around 7PM ET yesterday 9/18. All mails sent to me during this time got lost. If you believe that you sent me something important during this time please resend. Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 22 08:07:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B613A680D; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DB128C130; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:45:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, 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 dz6yfy67JCOV; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A7D3A6AC8; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:45:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,429,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="144274844" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2008 09:45:19 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2008 09:45:17 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:45:15 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Mail Problems Thread-Index: AckaXfJaz1KltMUORmq3BbOwrj8wBQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:07:52 -0700 Subject: [OPSAWG] Mail Problems X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org My company mail servers were in trouble for about thirteen hours starting around 7PM ET yesterday 9/18. All mails sent to me during this time got lost. If you believe that you sent me something important during this time please resend. Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From opsawg-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 24 19:43:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsawg-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582413A67F1; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:43:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671EF3A67F1; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:43:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.728 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] 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 jwtETXuz0vIf; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei-3com.com (unknown [221.12.31.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1467C3A659A; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei-3com.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K7Q008M9CYNJO@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:44:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from mailsecurity.h3c.com ([172.25.12.124]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0K7Q00DY3CYNBT@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:44:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from unknown (HELO b01376c) ([10.153.130.128]) by mailsecurity.h3c.com with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:49:21 +0800 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:43:44 +0800 From: Shimin Ban To: opsawg@ietf.org, mib-doctors@ietf.org Message-id: <011601c91eb8$88e45190$8082990a@h3c.huawei3com.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Subject: [OPSAWG] REMINDER: A proposal about how to get the real cause of SNMP failed requests. Please feed back your comments, thanks. X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: