Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:51:14 +0200 From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr> To: "Bert Wijnen" <WIJNEN@vnet.ibm.com> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FYI - Summary of "interim cross-wg meeting" Message-ID: <002c01bf0919$4968caa0$b8014b0a@fisystem.fr> References: <199909270910.FAA264640@northrelay03.pok.ibm.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's why you should go
https://domain/image.gif
rather than http://domain/image.gif
http:// triggers the browser to connect to the HTTP default port (80),
wheras https:// makes it connect to the port (443) serving content over SSL.
Cheers
mh
> 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 - FranR@iphighway.com
> Mark Stevens - markstevens@lucent.com
> Dan Grossman - dan@dma.isg.mot.com
> Matt Condell - mcondell@bbn.com
>
> 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 - mhugh@xpeditio.cnd.hp.com
> Shai Herzog - herzog@iphighway.com
> Yoram Bernet - yoramb@exchange.microsoft.com
> Luis A. Sanchez - lsanchez@bbn.com
>
> 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: mumble@ops.ietf.org
> (to subscribe send email to mumble-request@opts.ietf.org
> 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) - lsanchez@bbn.com
> Jon Saperia (snmp) - saperia@mediaone.net
> Keith McCloghrie (cops) - kzm@cisco.com
>
> 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
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002c01bf0919$4968caa0$b8014b0a>