Subject: FYI - Summary of "interim cross-wg meeting"

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 99 11:10:20 DST

Here is the summary and action points that resulted from our
"by invitation only meeting" that we had in Chicago 16/17 Sept 1999.

Bert
------------------ follwoing is a copy -------------------------
Date:    26 Sep 1999
From:    Bert Wijnen
To:      various WGs: diffserv, rap, policy framework, ipsp
Subject: Summary of "interim cross-wg meeting"

As posted to various mailing lists a few weeks ago, the responsible
ADs for the above WGs did call for a cross-wg meeting (by invitation)
to discuss cross-wg issues and requirements.
In addition the WG chairs and some others WG members, we had also
invited a few "SNMP proponents" to help discuss/evaluate the
question "Why COPS and PIBs instead or in addition to SNMP and MIBs".

Some people at the meeting though that there was a lot of anarchy
during the meeting. However, I myself would rather say that it was
clear that individual members of various WGs had different views on
how Policy-based management (or configuration management in general)
should work. There was also a difference in focus. Some people
focus on hig level abrstract policies and others focus on device
specific policies and configuration. Given the charters of the
involved WGs, this is understandable. But at the other hand, all
these WGs have the obligation to interact with each other where
needed, so that a total solution can emerge from the combined work
of the different WGs.

So, I would like to report on the positive side.

The meeting got the WGs talking to each other. People were "nice"
to each other, and I think we all came away with the feeling that
we need to align the work of these WGs better. To that goal, the
meeting decided to form 3 Design Teams as follows:

  1. Design Team to document Terminology

  2. Design Team to document Use Cases for Policy Based Management

  3. Design Team for Requirements for Configuration Management

The members of each team and the "charter" for each team are
listed below. As you can see, they have a very aggressive schedule
and we plan to discuss their results at the next IETF in Wash. D.C.

I would like to encourage everybody to contribute as much as you can,
either by sending your input/views/conserns to the ONE of the
mailing lists. From each WG we have members in the DT, so there is
no need to send a comment to all 3 or 4 mailing lists.
My suggestion would be to use these mailing lists:

  - Diffserv for Terminology
  - Policy for Use Cases
  - Rap for Configuration Management

Bert
---------------------------------------------------------------

Design Team to document Terminology

Design Team members:

      Francis Reichmeyer - [email-masked]
      Mark Stevens       - [email-masked]
      Dan Grossman       - [email-masked]
      Matt Condell       - [email-masked]

Fran is the team leader.

The team is chartered to:

- Document the terminology to be used for Policy Based Management.
  This terminology is intended to be used in all Policy related
  WGs and in WGs like RAP, Diffserv, IPSP and possibly others.

Milestones:
11 OCt 99 - checkpoint, possibly publish/post an interim doc
            so other can see where DT is going and comment
22 Oct 99 - publish document as an I-D
07 Nov 99 - discuss document (possibly in a BOF) at 46th IETF

Discussions can/should take place on one or all of the
Policy/RAP/Diffserv/IPSP mailing lists.

Bert
---------------------------------------------------------------

Design Team to document Use Cases for Policy Based Management

Design Team members:

      Hugh F. Mahon     - [email-masked]
      Shai Herzog       - [email-masked]
      Yoram Bernet      - [email-masked]
      Luis A. Sanchez   - [email-masked]

Hugh is the team leader.

The team is chartered to:

- Document various Use Case Scenarios for Policy Based Management
  in such a way that readers can understand:
  - At what levels of Abstraction a Policy can be specified
    via some sort of Gui tool
  - How that Policy specification gets stored in a repository
  - How that Policy gets distributed to the Policy Servers
    (Consumers?) and Network Devices (Targets?).
  - What the various levels of abstraction are at each point
    and how translation (conversion/mapping?) gets done from
    one level of abstraction to the next
  - How external events impact such Policies
  - How changes to a Policy data (from a GUI) get notified to
    Policy servers/targets
  - How Policy Servers and Targets report back to the users
    at the Gui (or a management station) if and how the Policy
    has been installed.
  - How and where conflict resolution is done

For those pieces for which we do not intern to define a
standard, you can describe the use of one or more existing
tools or concepts.

Milestones:
11 Oct 99 - checkpoint, possibly publish/post an interim doc
            so others can see where DT is going and comment
22 Oct 99 - publish document as an I-D
07 Nov 99 - discuss document in Policy WG
            (Brian/Kathy to include it in their agenda)

Bert
---------------------------------------------------------------

Design Team for Requirements for Configuration Management

The design team has the following tasks:

1) Write a document that specifies the requirements for
   configuration management. This includes reuirements for a
   data model, information model, and protocols. The requirments
   should be specified such that current/future proposals
   can be evaluated.

2) Evaluate (and document such evaluation) the COPS-PR/SoPI
   and SNMP/SMI against these requirements.
   This task will produce a document that shows how well the
   current COPS-PR/SoPI and SNMP/SMI meet those requirements.
   In addition, potential changes will be listed to each of
   the 2 packages by which they would meet the requirements.

3) Evaluate implementation and deployment costs.
     -   Cost of implementation
     -   Time to implement
     -   Impact on Deployed systems
     -   Impact on management staffs

Milestones:

20 Sep 99 - Start.
            Attendees of meeting send requirements to the mailing
            list: [email-masked]
            (to subscribe send email to [email-masked]
             and put the word subscribe in the body)
            The sooner everyone sends in requirements, the better.

01 Oct 99 - No more requirements accepted,

08 Oct 99 - or earlier
            Design Team (DT) publishes requirements to mumble
            list so everyone can check them and comment

15 Oct 99 - or earlier
            Design Team (DT) publishes a first cut of the evaluation
            to the mumble list so everyone can check and comment

22 Oct 99 - or earlier
            Design Team submits document(s) to I-D repository
            under the names of:
                draft-ops-mumble-<docname>-00.txt

07 Nov 99 - Documents presented/evaluated at 46th IETF in mumble-BOF
            (name of BOF to be determined)

Design Team Members:

      Luis Sanchez     (ipsp)  - [email-masked]
      Jon Saperia      (snmp)  - [email-masked]
      Keith McCloghrie (cops)  - [email-masked]

Design Team Leader: Luis Sanchez

Notes:
- Would be great if Design Team can create/maintain a web page
  listing the submitted requirments.(Juergen may be able to
  help, he has done so for quite a few other design teams).
- Mailing list and comments are restricted to attendees/invitees
  of the "interim policy/rap/diffserv" meeting so as to be able
  to be productive and focused.
- There is no discussion of an SNMPv4. We're documenting a set
  of requirements and evaluating 2 tool-sets and we have to have
  no rumours about a possible SNMPv4.
- The team members can consult with anybody they like on any
  items/issues they want/need help with.
- The ADs (and IESG) will evaluate the situation after the 46th
  IETF meeting.

Bert Wijnen - IETF co-AD for Operations and Management