Logistics
Roll-call
Other Business
Business In Order
Action Items & Motions
References
|
Meeting Date |
07/31/2002 |
|
Meeting Time |
10:00 am PDT |
|
Location |
Dial-in Number: 888-742-8686 (one-time only) International: 303-928-2600
(one-time only) Conference ID: 3006522 |
|
Duration |
1 Hour |
|
Chair |
Winston Bumpus |
|
Recording Secretary |
Hedy Alban |
|
Agenda |
Published in [1] |
|
Alan Davies |
AD |
SeeBeyond |
No |
|
Anand Akela |
AA |
HP |
Yes |
|
Andrea Westerinen |
AW |
Cisco |
Yes |
|
Andreas Maier |
AM |
IBM |
Yes |
|
Aravinda Gollapudi |
AG |
Verisign |
No |
|
Darran Rolls |
DR |
Waveset |
Yes |
|
Dennis Ho |
DH |
Iona |
Yes |
|
Dick Spellman |
DS |
Sun Microsystems Inc. |
Yes |
|
Ellen Stokes |
ES |
IBM |
Yes |
|
Fred Carter |
FC |
|
Yes |
|
Guru Bhat |
GB |
Sun Microsystems Inc. |
Yes |
|
Heather Kreger |
HK |
IBM |
Yes |
|
Hedy Alban |
HED |
Max Shevet Consulting |
Yes |
|
Jim Willits |
JW |
HP |
Yes |
|
Krishna Sankar |
KS |
Cisco |
No |
|
Michael Thatcher |
MT |
Microsoft |
Yes |
|
Robert Baafi |
RB |
Iona |
Yes |
|
Sekhar Saukkai |
SS |
Corporate Oxygen Inc. |
Yes |
|
Srinivas Vadhri |
SV |
ComerceOne |
Yes |
|
Winston Bumpus |
WB |
Novell |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Members on call on 7/31 |
|
|
|
|
Ken Crozier |
KC |
Cisco |
Yes |
|
Gil Kirkpatrick |
GK |
NetPro |
Yes |
|
Kevin Brinkley |
KB |
Intel |
Yes |
|
Hamayoun Pourheidari |
HP |
HP |
Yes |
|
Veena Subrahmanyam |
VS |
HP |
Yes |
|
Jim Davis |
JD |
Sun |
Yes |
|
Karl Schopmeyer |
KS |
Cisco |
Yes |
|
Bart Whitely |
BW |
Caldera International |
Yes |
|
George Erricson |
GE |
EMC |
Yes |
|
Ravi Sernando |
RS |
HP |
Yes |
|
WB |
|
|
|
WB |
Sharing
information with DMTF: OASIS is open but DMTF has confidentiality
restrictions. Therefore, submit work to OASIS first, and then to DMTF.
Publish it here, share it internally, get a review, and DMTF must make it
public before sending it back to OASIS. |
|
|
|
Agenda item |
|
WB |
Assigning Additional Roles
and Responsibilities -------- DMTF: Jim Willitz -------- OMI: Hamayoun
Pourheidari -------- Global Grid Forum:
Ellen Stokes -------- W3C Web Services
Architecture group: Heather Kreger -------- Enterprise
Management workgroup: … |
|
WB |
Review Schedule -------- The window for
submitting specifications is 30 days prior to each calendar quarter. - Deliverables & Dates -------- Management
Protocol Specification, June 2003 -------- After submission
of the spec, we will spend some time on interoperability and testing - Meetings -------- No meeting on
August 7 -------- Beginning August
14, weekly meetings at 10:00 Pacific time lasting one hour. -------- Call-in number to
follow -------- Face-to-face
meeting in the future, perhaps Sept-Oct timeframe, perhaps lasting a day |
|
WB |
Review Scope WB
then led a discussion in which each member then described his/her expectations
for the committee. - AW: From a Cisco perspective I would like to see SOAP-based, XML-schema-based way to manage systems and networks. This work should coordinate with that of DMTF to deliver a combination of the best answers and experiences for what works and what doesn’t. AM:
We should spend time specifying what we want to achieve. What is the model?
We must agree on the metamodel and the specific models. This should not be
just another protocol floating on the wire behind the same interface. If
that’s what we want, why do we go to SOAP? Why not just stay at HTTP? AG:
The model must be all-encompassing or else it’s not worth much. Let’s make a
reading list for all members. DS:
Can we move web services to integrate enterprises, not just the web? ES:
We should have a clearly defined model to access the schema base. When we do
the protocol, we should maintain clean separation between interface binding
and protocol, as things move forward in the Internet and Grid arenas. FC:
We need a place to work where there is a standardization using a common
model. HK:
Management is important in B2B, so our work will be a piece of the pie. W3C
is working too, building requirements. We need to make sure that these
efforts dovetail and are aligned. JW:
I suggest that we look over the year and see what intermediate deliverables
make sense. WB:
Yes, we will move forward after we agree on our set of requirements. MT:
I would like to reiterate Ellen’s comment that we use a SOAP-based protocol. RB:
I have a practical interest – integrate enterprise management systems with
other software. I am particularly interested in OpenView and hope that this
effort will make my work easier. WB:
Having a real-world perspective on this will sprinkle our ideas with reality.
JC:
IETF is mixing requirements, e.g., transport protocol and application
behavior. Going forward, we need to separate each of these and create
requirements for each one. WB:
When we start looking at deliverables, we need to delineate between the
information model and the behaviors. We appreciate that perspective.
Management is not just an add-on, it is more than just monitoring. Management
is a control piece. It is important to include management in the initial
architecture, not as a bolt-on later. HP:
A common and defined model as part of the deliverable. Also, whatever we come
up with should be extensible and customizable. Finally, what we come up with
must be practical and not too heavy-weight. WB:
This is an important aspect, looking at practicality of implementation. VS:
I agree with all that has been said. In addition, security is important – the
white elephant that we should address off the bat. JD:
I reiterate that we do have the requirement at Sun for an XML schema. As to a
SOAP-based web services management protocol, we must take a poll to see
whether the model should be SOAP or something else. I would like us to
produce a requirements document before we move further. Claude:
Re: the model – we already have the CIM model, and many implementations are
based on it. As a first step, we should get our set of requirements and post
it on the website. KS:
We come in with different perceptions and of what to accomplish and how to
accomplish them. Sometimes we use the same words but we have different
definitions. This will be an ongoing challenge. BW:
Start with security and make sure that we implement practical stuff. We have
some things in common but in other areas we will be blindsided. GE:
The problem: CIM isn’t universally adopted. CIM should be the basis of what
we do to some extent, but we do not want to get sidetracked. We must get
organized and resolve this as soon as possible. With respect to scope: our
protocol must be flexible enough to cover everything from embedded to wide
area networks. WB:
It will take an industry initiative to move this forward. We have the right
people here, a common thread among all the folks on the phone. We will put
out an email request for requirements. We would like to use that email thread
as the basis for our next discussion, which will be on scope and
requirements. We would like to answer the question about CIM – we don’t want
to reinvent it, but we want to make sure that we are doing the right thing. |
|
5 |
Motion to adjourn |
|
|
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 PDT to reconvene Aug 14 10:00 PDT |
|
|
|
|
|
Owner |
Action Item |
|
|
WB |
e-mail committee members for input into the committee’s requirements document |
|
|
|
Draft a requirements document based in e-mailed responses from committee members |
|
|
WB |
Get new call-in number |
|
|
WB |
Schedule face-to-face meeting |
|
|
Motions |
|
|
|
|
|
[1]