Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:53:10 +0200 From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr> To: <modssl-users@modssl.org> Cc: <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Tr: FYI - Summary of "interim cross-wg meeting" Message-ID: <003701bf0919$8c217ae0$b8014b0a@fisystem.fr>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, freebsd-security crowd, and real follow-up to modssl-users, ... my MUA built by Mr Gates fooled me ;) mh >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?003701bf0919$8c217ae0$b8014b0a>