hi Dave Harrington gave a great presentation yesterday in the operations and management open area meeting. What are the next steps as a result of this? Sharon Chisholm Nortel Ottawa, Ontario Canada
For those who are not on the main IETF list and who were not at the OPS Area Open meeting in Vancouver. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 08:23 To: ietf <at> ietf.org Subject: New OPS-AD needed The emails from Alex and Scott reminded me that I also want to publicly announce that I will not re-up, in other words that I will be stepping down in March. I have enjoyed doing the AD job a lot. I have to admit that there are also several less pleasant aspects in the AD job. But all in all I am glad I did get the opportunity to learn so much and to have been able to interact with so many people about all sorts of technical and organizational and process topics. But 8 years I think is enough, and I think it is time for new blood for the Netowrk Management side of the OPS Area. Thank you all for your trust and confidence in my being an AD. And pls help the nomcom find a good candidate or better candidates! Bert _______________________________________________(Continue reading)
FYI and possible comments. Pls let me know if you feel we (IETF) need to do something because of this. Bert -----Original Message----- From: new-work-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:new-work-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of Victoria Gray Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:51 To: New-work <at> ietf.org Subject: [New-work] OMA New Work - 1 New Work Item Approved Dear All, OMA would like to inform all the organisations subscribed to the IETF new-work list of the approval of 1 new work item: 1 Device Management Smartcard WI: http://www.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/TP/Permanent_documents/OMA-WID_0126-DM_SC-V1_0-20051108-A.zip The primary objective of the Device Management Working Group is to specify protocols and mechanisms to manage distributed mobile wireless devices, in order to optimise subscriber's experience, reduce the network operating costs and create new business opportunities. The DM group has decided that several requirements (functionalities) unfulfilled in DM enabler 1.2, and also new ones, would not be dealt by a later DM enabler release, but likely in new enablers that would refer to and interoperate in a consistent manner with DM 1.2. Concerning the Smart Card functionalities, it was agreed to have a new work item dealing with them. The main Smart Card functionalities to be covered by this WI are (but not limited to): . Defining a secure dynamic provisioning of Management Objects available on the Smart Card; . definition and description of Smart Card Management Objects; . Security extension for DM enablers using Smart Cards. . Secure management of Management Objects (including private and sensitive data) in the Smart Card. It would include: MO's update in the SC over-the-air, MO's update in the DM-client and synchronization with the SC, new MO's storage in the SC after manufacturing, etc.(Continue reading)
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > FYI and possible comments. > > Pls let me know if you feel we (IETF) need to do something because of this. I am not sure how far the IETF will go here. I do see this work equal to the concept of we open a new WG for a specific MIB. This case the SMART-CARD-MIB. A personally, see a bigger need for mappings of managed objects defined for SNMP (as MIBs) and Device Management of OMA. I already have seen some questions on a SyncML malinglist regarding the 'standardization' of managed objects for Device Managment in the OMA perspective. I guess the IETF could assist there by specifying something similar as we use for managed objects of MIB modules, standardized objects and vendor specific ones (where each vendor has a branch). I started some time ago an internet-draft for this, but due to lack of time I did not finish it yet to a decent state of publication. The way to get access to the managed objects I see more as specific for the environment. > > Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: new-work-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:new-work-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of Victoria Gray > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:51 > To: New-work <at> ietf.org(Continue reading)
In this article: http://www.billingworld.com/archive-detail.cfm?archiveId=7705 I read: Stories abound of equipment manufacturers struggling to deliver not only systems that support IMS, but also solid Management Information Base (MIB) databases that make their gear manageable. A source inside BellSouth who has spent the past several months working on the LEC's VoIP architecture says that major equipment manufacturer has lost an opportunity to supply application servers based on the lack of reasonable MIBs. If this is the type of basic problem holding up IMS development, it's clear that most IMS gear is simply not ready to come out of the oven yet. "We're still seeing 24-month [estimates] before we see widespread deployment of standard systems," says Syndesis' Nicholson. which kind of surprises me, namely that the IMS infrastructure seems in need of MIB modules. Does anyone have any insights/comments/other-data-points? Bert
RSS Feed1 | |
|---|---|
1 | |
6 | |
4 | |
19 | |
6 | |
4 | |
25 | |
3 | |
9 | |
11 | |
32 | |
4 | |
3 | |
11 | |
17 | |
8 | |
3 | |
4 | |
7 | |
1 | |
5 | |
2 | |
5 | |
13 | |
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
2 | |
3 | |
2 | |
14 | |
1 | |
1 | |
4 | |
2 | |
1 | |
4 | |
4 | |
1 | |
2 | |
6 |
