Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPS Area WG

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:37:43 -0400

Folks,

Dan and I would like to propose an area-wide working group whose charter
is reflected below. Please read and comment upon the proposed charter.

                               Dan and Ron

=============================================================
Operations and Management Area Working Group (opsawg)

Chair(s):

TBD
TBD

Area Directors:

Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>

The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
or do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG will
serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF.

The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work
items, when they arise. The working group meets if there
are active proposals that require discussion. The working group
milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current work items and
their associated milestones. All new work items and rechartering
proposals will be brought for approval with the IESG.

The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the behavior or
WGs in the O&M area  (e.g., manageability
requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that don't merit a
WG of their own or belong to WGs that have already concluded (e.g.
advancement of documents on the standards track,  application
statements, extensions of MIB modules).

The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at
least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users
community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers.  It is
not within the scope of the OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts
of a WG charter items that could not come to convergence on what they
were chartered to do.

The currently active OPSAWG work items mostly fall under the following
topics:

(A) Development of a BCP document that will provide guidelines for
operational and manageability requirements that need to be covered in
IETF documents, especially those documents that include requirements
and specification of new protocols or protocol extensions.

(B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents

(C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB modules
which were developped in working groups that have concluded.

Goals and Milestones:

June 2007 - Initial submission for the Guidelines for Considering
Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft

October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic
Management Data Models

October 2007 - Initial submission for the Structured Data Elements
(SDEs) for syslog

December  2007 - WGLC for the Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft

February 2008 - Submit the Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft to the IESG for consideration
as BCP

April 2008 - WGLC for the Template for Generic
Management Data Models

April 2008 - WGLC for the  Structured Data Elements
(SDEs) for syslog

June 2008 - Submit the Template for Generic
Management Data Models to the IESG for consideration as BCP

June 2008 - Submit the  Structured Data Elements
(SDEs) for syslog to the IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:58:20 +0200

> October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for Generic

What is this? And is there consensus that this is a WG work item?

/js

PS: And can we avoid the cross posting? ;-)

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:02:09 +0300

One more thing - please send feedback until May 17 the latest as we want
to put the charter for approval on the agenda of the may 24 IESG
telechat. 

Dan and Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Dan and I would like to propose an area-wide working group 
> whose charter is reflected below. Please read and comment 
> upon the proposed charter.
> 
>                                Dan and Ron
> 
> The Operations and Management Area receives occasional 
> proposals for the development and publication of RFCs dealing 
> with operational and management topics that are not in scope 
> of an existing working group or do not justify the formation 
> of a new working group. The OPSAWG will serve as the forum 
> for developing such work items in the IETF.
> 
> The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such 
> work items, when they arise. The working group meets if there 
> are active proposals that require discussion. The working 
> group milestones are updated as needed to reflect the current 
> work items and their associated milestones. All new work 
> items and rechartering proposals will be brought for approval 
> with the IESG.
> 
> The focus of the work will be on topics that govern the 
> behavior or WGs in the O&M area  (e.g., manageability
> requirements) and on small, highly focused projects that 
> don't merit a WG of their own or belong to WGs that have 
> already concluded (e.g.
> The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to 
> have at least a reasonable level of interest from the 
> operators and users community and have a committed number of 
> editors and reviewers.  It is not within the scope of the 
> OPSAWG to pick up failed WG work or parts of a WG charter 
> items that could not come to convergence on what they were 
> chartered to do.
> 
> (A) Development of a BCP document that will provide 
> guidelines for operational and manageability requirements 
> that need to be covered in IETF documents, especially those 
> documents that include requirements and specification of new 
> protocols or protocol extensions.
> 
> (C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB 
> modules which were developped in working groups that have concluded.
> 
> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> June 2007 - Initial submission for the Guidelines for 
> Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft
> 
> October 2007 - Initial submission for the Template for 
> Generic Management Data Models
> 
> December  2007 - WGLC for the Guidelines for Considering 
> February 2008 - Submit the Guidelines for Considering 
> Operations and Management of New Protocols Internet-Draft to 
> the IESG for consideration as BCP
> 
> April 2008 - WGLC for the Template for Generic Management Data Models
> 
> June 2008 - Submit the Template for Generic Management Data 
> Models to the IESG for consideration as BCP
> 
> OPS-NM mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:06:01 +0300

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:58 PM
> To: Ron Bonica
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG
> 
> What is this? 

See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago.

>And is there consensus that this is a WG work item?

This is what we try to determine.  

> PS: And can we avoid the cross posting? ;-)

We can try. I took out ops-nm from the distribution list. 

Dan

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:15:57 +0200

> See the proposal sent by Dave Harrington a few weeks ago.

Can we be a bit more concrete? Do you mean "A Template for Documents
Containing a MIB Module" <draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template-02>?
But this does not have "Generic" in its title - so I suppose this is
something else. Is there an ID to look at?

/js

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:22:21 -0400

Hi,

I proposed this item. 

It would be a generic version of the MIB Doctor sponsored template
that I have been (occasionally) working on. It would simply provide
some guidance to editors to provide consistency to the surrounding
text for data models to include sections on 
1) an  overview of the purpose of the dat amodel
2) the organization/structure of the data model
3) how the data model relates to other data models
4) some boilerplate for security and IANA considerations 
5) possibly some boilerplate for operational considerations

I expect the template would be availabl ein an xml2rfc-compatible
format, as well as in a text format.

Of course, it be a WG decision whether to do this, and what it should
look like.

dbh

> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: Ron Bonica

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:22:31 +0300

> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [email-masked]; Ron Bonica
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG
> 
> Can we be a bit more concrete? Do you mean "A Template for 
> Documents Containing a MIB Module" 
> <draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template-02>?
> But this does not have "Generic" in its title - so I suppose 
> this is something else. Is there an ID to look at?
> 
> /js 
> 

David Harrington made the initial proposal in the message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg00191.html.
There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. 

Dan

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:48 -0400

Hi,

The existing MIB-specific draft could probably be converted fairly
easily as a starting point. The WG could then adapt it to provide a
template suitable for multiple types of data models.

The MIB Template is based on MIB Doctor input and guidelines from
RFC4181.

I expect a generic template might contain more suggestions from the
guidelines for operability and manageability document that is the
first item in the charter.

Such a template would hopefully be helpful to editors that are not
experts in OPS network management, to help them make sure certain
aspects of operability and management are considered when developing
data models (or information models) related to their protocols.

dbh 

> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Ron Bonica; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG
> 
> 
>  
>  
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:04:49 +0200

> There is no Internet-Draft yet, as far as I know. 

Looks like a "nice to have" activity to me; but this does not seem to
be a pressing thing to get done.

BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the ops-area
scope? This document establishes an IANA registry for SnmpEngineID
formats and allocates a well known localEngineID that can be used in
case an agent's engineID is not known and there is no proxy involved.

/js

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:13 -0400

Hi,

I agree this is not pressing. I have been slow to finish the MIB
template for the same reason; other things are more important.
However, having such a template could help WGs produce more
consistent, and hopefully better quality, documents.

dbh

> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:05 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:49:27 -0700

> consistent, and hopefully better quality, documents.

This WG seems like a good idea to me, except I would think
of it as a "review process" WG for small items.  Priority
isn't as important as agreement that it is useful and people
are willing to work on it (whatever 'it' is).  I see this
more as a project review board than a WG.

IMO, dedicated authors and reviewers need to be lined up in advance
for a WG like this, as part of any mini-project getting
the green light to start.  People (like me) who may want to comment
on some of the drafts will subscribe to the WG mailing list,
and pay closer attention during WGLCs (as usual ;-).

I want the template work to get done.
I am willing to review it (but not work on writing it).

> dbh

Andy

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:34:57 +0300

I believe that it would. However, if we are in charter wording mode in
order to better accommodate it we should change:

s/(C) Maintenance and extensions of documents that define MIB modules
which were developped in working groups that have concluded./(C)
Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents which were
developped in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules).

Should we include the document in the milestones list? 

Dan

> BTW, would draft-schoenw-snmp-discover-02.txt fall into the 
> ops-area scope? This document establishes an IANA registry 
> for SnmpEngineID formats and allocates a well known 
> localEngineID that can be used in case an agent's engineID is 
> not known and there is no proxy involved.
> 
> /js
> 
> --

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:19:56 +0200

> developped in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules).

I requested a similar change in the past (but it got lost somewhere).
 
> Should we include the document in the milestones list? 

Ask the WG to be. I can create a WG -00 anytime soon (before the next
IETF) and I believe the WG -00 version will be close to be ready for
WG last call. ;-)

/js

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:33:43 -0400

Hi,

For SNMP to work following the RFC3411 approach, the dispatcher needs
to forward messages to specific applications based partly on the
contextEngineID. Juergen's proposal makes contextEngineID discovery an
application within the SNMP architecture, which is where
contextEngineID discovery belongs. His proposal allows his discovery
messages to be passed to the application layer by having a well-known
engineID that the dispatcher can use to forward the message to a
discovery application.

USM needs to do a security-model-specific discovery of the
securityEngineID, and that has simply been assumed to also be the
contextEngineID, but that is not always a good assumption.

I believe Juergen's proposal is a very good approach that is
security-model independent. I believe it will permit contextEngineID
discovery for environments using SNMPv1/v2c/v3 messages, and using
ISMS TSM, USM, or SNMPv1/v2c security models. 

I also believe it could be used by other NM protocols, like netconf,
either by getting the MIB object or its semantic equivalent. The
benefit of doing this would be some correlation of co-resident snmp
agents and netconf servers and which can be used to correlate
previously retrieved data and newly retrieved data in  way that works
even if the address changes as a result of NAT or DHCP. (i.e., the
historical data gathered by an NMS is not obsoleted by an address
change at the managed device interface.)

I strongly support the work proposed by Juergen, and think we should
start from his draft.

dbh

> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)

---

From: "STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:39:53 +0200

Dear Dan and Ron,

> (B) Templates and tools for Operations and Management Area Documents

I enhanced XSL part of draft-stephan-ops-xml-mib-module-template. The last version transforms a RFC2629-based XML MIB draft in a XML schema directly under Mozilla.

I think it's a good starting point for working on an update of RFC2629 leading to a common document format for specifying datamodels.

Regards
Emile

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : jeudi 10 mai 2007 21:02
À : Ron Bonica; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : [OPS-AREA] RE: [OPS-NM] OPS Area WG

Dan and Ron