austin, july 2001 forum report - the open...
TRANSCRIPT
Austin, July 2001Forum Report
CustomerCouncil
Elaine Babcock
Customer Council Summary
q Interoperability Business Scenario Workshop successful; PO&M on next steps drafted
q DIF feedback indicates that two-way dialogue on requirements/Forum focus is working
q Time spent on substance vs process
Open Issues Discussion
q Agree add eBusiness Infrastructure Requirements to Requirements Tracking System
q Alternatives to educate Members/attendees: professional presenters; Regional Meetings; development of relevant business scenario; educational workshops before Conferences/during Conference evenings; add “orientation” to Forum web sites; Forums develop annually refreshed materials; formal training courses
q CC will review awareness materials from Security Forum
q Need coordination between the Forums to not duplicate efforts/work at cross purposes + issues that cross Forums need coordination: limited CC role?; staff role?; Forum Steering Committees?; Board Technical Committee?
Mobile Management Forum
Gregory Gorman
MMF Vertical Industry
Workshops
Gregory GormanDirector,
Mobile Management Forum
The Open Group’s Mobile Management Forum: Enable the Wireless Enterprise
Web ContentCommunications Data
Enterprise DataDirectory Data
Any Data(to which the user is entitled)
Over Any Network
POTS, ISDN, ADMSLGSM, CDMA, TDMA, PCS
GPRS, PDC, …...
To Any Device
Open Group’s Mobile Management Forum
MMF vision:
Accelerate the deployment of wireless applications and devices into the enterprise environment by bringing together vendors
and corporate/government buyers to ensure delivered solutions meet customer
requirements
Industry End user targets for MMF ...
Focus on B2B / B2C:
1. Banks/Financial Services
2. Airlines/Airports
3. Information Services (Mobile Portals, Yahoo, AOL)
4. Telematics
5. Entertainment/Media (Time Warner, StarTV, SEGA)
Focus on B2E:
1. Banks/Financial Services
2. Transport/Logistics
3. Manufacturing/Utilities
4. Pharmaceuticals
5. Airlines/Airports
6. Healthcare
7. Government bodies
SupplierSupplier
PartnersPartners
InvestorInvestor
official bodiesofficial bodiesCompanyCompany
EmployeesB2E
EmployeesB2E
CustomersB2C
CustomersB2C
B2B
SessionSession SyncSync AAAAAA ContentContent
MMFMMF
Fin
anci
alF
inan
cial
Med
iaM
edia
Tra
vel
Tra
vel
use
r g
rou
ps
Industry specific user groups allow MMF to influence standards organizations...
Output: validation of requirements & architecture, best practice, ...
..MWIF....MWIF.. SyncML..SyncML.. ..IETF…..IETF… WAP Forum ...WAP Forum ...
influence other groups as wellinfluence other groups as well
Po
lice
Po
lice
Uti
litie
sU
tilit
ies
Rem
ote
Wo
rker
Rem
ote
Wo
rker
Others MMF wishes to influence
§ Infrastructure Manufacturers – Ericsson, Nortel, Cisco
§ Carriers (Vodafone, British Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, AT&T Wireless, TIM, NTT DoCoMo, KDDI, TIM, Sonera, Telefonica, KPN)
§ Mobile System development Platform Providers (e.g. BEA-WEBLogic, IBM-WEBsphere, Microsoft.net)
Architecture
Chris Greenslade
The FORUM (new readers start here)
q Initiatives§ The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)
§ Architecture Description Markup Language (ADML)
§ Technical Architecture Builder & Browser (TABB)
q Who’s Who§ Manager John Spencer
§ Chair Chris GreensladeFrietuna Computer Consultants (UK)
§ Vice Chairs Hugh FisherNational Health Service (UK)Barry SmithThe MITRE Corporation (USA)
Forum membership
q Membership April 2001§ 19 Silver, 9 Gold, 2 Platinum
q Membership July 2001§ 21 Silver, 12 Gold, 4 Platinum
q Growing interest from consultancies/integrators§ Will extend use of TOGAF to multiple clients
q At Austin§ Architecture Briefing - 25 Attendees§ Architecture Forum - 15 Attendees
Architecture Briefing
q Mark Maier, The Aerospace Corporation§ What Do We Mean by "Architecture"?
q Rob Byrd, SI and Tom Folk, Mitre§ Tools and Techniques for Operational Architectures
q Geoff McClelland, CFOS§ TOGAF Case Studies
q Manohara Nagaraja § Frameworks for Enterprise Architecture
q Guru Vasuveda, IBM Global Services§ IBM's Architecture Patterns
q Dwayne Hardy, DoD Open Systems Joint Task Force § Technical Profiles - Extending Architectural Constraints
Architecture Forum
q Architecture Patterns q TOGAF Guideq TOGAF positioning re. Zachman Frameworkq Model-Centric Description of ADMq Additions to TOGAF§ Business scenario guidelines § Architecture assessment
q TOGAF Certification q Joint meeting on patterns with Security Forum
TOGAF evolution
q 2001: TOGAF - version 7§ Position TOGAF relative to Zachman Framework
§ Architecture assessment - procedure and checklists
§ Deletion of outdated material
§ Model based representations (TABB & METIS)
§ Re-evaluation of TOGAF scope
§ Business Scenarios - additional material and elevation in document hierarchy
In progress
In progress
DirectoryInteroperability
Forum
Chris Harding
DIF Meeting Objectives
Prioritize Directory standardization activities, in order to focus and accelerate the work of the directory standards bodies, and
§ Build on the June Global Directory Forum meeting
§ Review directory requirements
§ Discuss open source directory implementations and their relevance
§ Progress the Directory Guidelines and Identity Management Scenario work items
§ Review the DIF work program and roadmap.
Works With LDAP 2000 Plugfest
q Now with 21 certified products from 10 vendors
q More expected as they complete the process
http://www.wwldap.org
24
12
DSML Group Meeting
q Not part of the DIF
q Hosted by the DIF to accelerate vital Directory standards work
q DSML is XML representation of directory contents
q DSML 1.0 long recognized as valuable but inadequate
q DSML 2.0 scope, base document, and workplan now agreed
Mobile and Directory BOF
q Charter for Mobile and Directory Working Group agreed
q Working Group formed
q Synergy with DIF SP-DNA Working Group
q Open to members of DIF and MMF
Directory Standards Prioritization
q Aim – to focus and accelerate the work of the standards bodies that is needed for Directory Interoperability
q Draft White Paper reviewed
q Agreement in principle
q Final version of White Paper due August
The Global Directory Forum
The DIF and the GDF
The DIF
EMA/ EEMA
Requirements
Education and Communication
Influencing Public Policy
Testing and Certification
Standards Prioritization
eBusinessCorporate
Service Provision
Building on the GDF –Directory Requirements
q Requirements input from The Open Group customer council
q EMA/EEMA eBusiness Infrastructure Requirements presented
q DIF eBusiness Requirements Working Group formed to operate under GDF umbrella
Open Source Directory
q OpenLDAP Project
q Contact made
q New Directory features may be best done through Open Source
Directory Guidelines and Id Management Scenario
q Directory Guidelines§ KMI Business Scenario recommended
guidelines be produced
§ Scope, outline contents, and work plan agreed
q Identity Management Business Scenario§ Incorporates mobile profile management
§ MMF joint session - valuable input from MMF
§ But no time to build on it
DIF Roadmap
1999 2000 2001 The Future
Works With LDAP 2000
Secure Server
Enterprise LDAP Server
Works WithEnterpriseLDAP Server
LDAP 2000 Server
Works With Secure Server
Dates shown are for Dates shown are for definition of certificates. definition of certificates. Launch and deployment will Launch and deployment will typically be 6 months later.typically be 6 months later.
LDAP for SpecialApplication (eg. PKI)
More SpecialApplications
LDAP for secondSpecial Application
Business Scenario Business Scenario --Case Studies and Case Studies and Customer ExamplesCustomer Examples
We are here
DIF Workplan and Roadmap
q Ultimate objective of Enterprise Directory confirmed
q Proposed new issue of LDAP 2000 brand Q3 2002
q Definition to be built on Business Scenarios and Standards Priorities
DIF Meeting Achievements
üPrioritize Directory standardization activities, in order to focus and accelerate the work of the directory standards bodies, and
üBuild on the June Global Directory Forum meeting
üReview directory requirements
üDiscuss open source directory implementations and their relevance
üProgress the Directory Guidelines and Identity Management Scenario work items
üReview the DIF work program and roadmap.
Plus Mobile and Directory Group, SP-DNA, DSML 2.0, and Works With LDAP 2000 Plugfest
EMA Forum
Teresa Schauer
EMA 2001 Solutions Summit
q First EMA Forum Solutions Summit held
q Educational sessions ranged in topics including PKI Implementation, Directory Implementation, Wireless Messaging, and more!
q First EMA Forum Tutorial on Trust for E-Business
The EMA Challenge
q Phase II of the Security Challenge
q Focus is on exchanging strongly encrypted email without the need for manual key exchange
q In conjunction with an ongoing project of The Boeing Company
q Planning demonstration in Amsterdam, and development of a best practices guide
EnterpriseManagement
Forum
Martin Kirk
Plenary Sessions
q Excellent presentations giving a good overview of the future of Manageability
q Strategies for simplifying the managed environment
q An introduction to Network Attached Storage and its management issues
q An overview of the active projects within the Enterprise Management Forum
Application Management Projects
q ARM – Company Review of latest release approved. Sanity Check copy will be circulated by end of July.
q AIC – Company Review of the new version will begin in mid-August, completed by October meeting.
q XSLM – Completion of new version expected by October, with Company Review following that.
Pegasus Developments
q Release 1.0.0 of the open source code frozen.
q Stable version will be put up on SourceForge.
q First draft of Technical Standard will be produced by end of August, based on stable release.
q Productive face-to-face meeting moving the work forward.
Joint Session with QoS
q Contributed to a discussion on relevance of CIM.
q We believe that CIM provides necessary modeling capabilities for QoS.
q We will continue co-operation to try and develop effective Service Management that will integrate into our common infrastructure.
Linux Systems Administration
q We had a brainstorming session focusing on. the issues relating to systems management for Linux systems.
q We believe that open source and standardization of interfaces are the key.
q We want to promote Pegasus so that we can get it into the Linux distributions. More than that, we want to actually get in so that it is installed and used by the distributions.
q Potential for a public session, in the US in January.
Quality of ServiceTask Group
Sally Long
Vision
q Further a standard approach to the propagation of customer-to-vendor and vendor-to-vendor QoS requirements and measurements in a manner that is quantifiable, observable, and interoperable, and realizes a process for end-to-end Quality of Service assurance which is acceptable to vendors and customers alike.
§ Rational is provide the ability to detect points of failure to§ remedy the situation as quickly as possible§ provide assurance to customers/vendors they are receiving
the service levels they have been guaranteed.
§ Focus for vision is on End-to-End Quality of Service§ Enterprise => WANs => Remote Services
Goals
q Understand what standards exist and where the holes are in QoS standardization
q Work with other consortia to:§ make existing QoS standards for more effective by driving
requirements for those standards
§ extend existing QoS standards, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and policies to account for end-to-end QoS
§ Where standards initiatives do not exist – initiate them within The Taskforce
q Establish testing and certification programs for Quality of Service standards and policies
RoadMap
q Definition Phase Q3/01(Component Map => Taxonomy => SIB)
q Evaluation & Decision Making Phase Q4/01 q Implementation Phase Q1/02
NOTE:
APP is Application
SLA is Service Level Agreement (Objectives)
USER-1U
USER-NU
APP-1U
APP-NU
Client Network & Computing
Resource Managers
Client Network
& Computing Resources
Client Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
Service Network & Computing Resources
Wide Area Network
Resources
Service Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
Wide Area Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
USER-NS
APP-1S
APP-2S
USER-1S
APP-NS
...
...
...
...
CLIENT QoSZONE
See speaker notes for more information
TOP LEVEL COMPONENT MAP FOR FEDERATED E2E SOLUTIONS
SERVICEQoS ZONE
WAN QoSZONES
PEERING PEERING
Wide Area Network Resource Managers
Service Network & Computing
Resource Managers
MGMT DATA MGMT DATA
Active ControlPolicies
Decision Point
Control Meter
Resource Manager
Policies Measurements
actionidentifier measurement
Classifier
ActiveClassification
Rules
Active MeteringPolicies
Measure &ControlPolicies
Marker
tag
Active Policy Update
N-layers of senior policy-driven Resource ManagersMgmt Data
Exchange with other authoritativeQoS zones (e.g. other service providers)
Not all components shown are in every resource manager instance
SLA ADMIN
Network & Computing Resource Managers
Resource Mgmt. SLAs
Network &
Computing Resources
Traffic Flow
MID-LEVEL COMPONENT MAP
Provision Measurement
Provision Classification
PeeringPolicies Measurements
As policies move from more senior to junior resource managers they are more decomposed in terms a breadth of control within the zone.
Taxonomy Draft Work in Progress
QZ QoS ZoneE End-to-endC ClientW Wide Area Network (WAN)S ServicesO OtherRM Resource ManagerR ResourceU UserP PeeringMD Management DataSLA Service Level AgreementA ApplicationsO OtherPOL PoliciesRUL RulesDP Decision PointCLS ClassifierMK MarkerCTL ControlMTR MeterID IdentifierTAG TagACT ActionMEA MeasurementROL RolesST StateSEC SecurityO Other
QZC QZW QZS
QZC.R QZW.R QZS.RQZC.A
QZC.U QZS.A
QZS.U
QZC.RM QZS.RM QZS.RM
QZC.SLAQZW.SLA
QZS.SLA
QZC.P
QZW.P
QZW.P QZS.P
QZC.MD QZW.MD QZW.MD QZS.MD
QZx.RM.RUL
QZx.RM.DP
QZx.RM.POLQZx.RM.POL
QZx.RM.POL
QZx.RM.CLS
QZx.RM.MK QZx.RM.CTL QZx.RM.MTR
QZx.R.MEA
QZx.R.ID
QZx.R.TAG QZx.R.ACT
WAN Zone – TaxonomyDraft Work in Progress
QZW.RM QZW.R QZW.U QZW.P QZW.MD31 32 33 34 35
01 POL 3101 - QZW.RM.POL 3201 - QZW.R.POL 3301 - QZW.U.POL 3401 - QZW.P.POL 3501 - QZW.MD.POL02 RUL 3102 - QZW.RM.RUL 3202 - QZW.R.RUL 3302 - QZW.U.RUL 3402 - QZW.P.RUL 3502 - QZW.MD.RUL03 DP 3103 - QZW.RM.DP 3203 - QZW.R.DP 3303 - QZW.U.DP 3403 - QZW.P.DP 3503 - QZW.MD.DP04 CLS 3104 - QZW.RM.CLS 3204 - QZW.R.CLS 3304 - QZW.U.CLS 3404 - QZW.P.CLS 3504 - QZW.MD.CLS05 MK 3105 - QZW.RM.MK 3205 - QZW.R.MK 3305 - QZW.U.MK 3405 - QZW.P.MK 3505 - QZW.MD.MK06 CTL 3106 - QZW.RM.CTL 3206 - QZW.R.CTL 3306 - QZW.U.CTL 3406 - QZW.P.CTL 3506 - QZW.MD.CTL07 MTR 3107 - QZW.RM.MTR 3207 - QZW.R.MTR 3307 - QZW.U.MTR 3407 - QZW.P.MTR 3507 - QZW.MD.MTR08 ID 3108 - QZW.RM.ID 3208 - QZW.R.ID 3308 - QZW.U.ID 3408 - QZW.P.ID 3508 - QZW.MD.ID09 TAG 3109 - QZW.RM.TAG 3209 - QZW.R.TAG 3309 - QZW.U.TAG 3409 - QZW.P.TAG 3509 - QZW.MD.TAG10 ACT 3110 - QZW.RM.ACT 3210 - QZW.R.ACT 3310 - QZW.U.ACT 3410 - QZW.P.ACT 3510 - QZW.MD.ACT11 MEA 3111 - QZW.RM.MEA 3211 - QZW.R.MEA 3311 - QZW.U.MEA 3411 - QZW.P.MEA 3511 - QZW.MD.MEA12 ROL 3112 - QZW.RM.ROL 3212 - QZW.R.ROL 3312 - QZW.U.ROL 3412 - QZW.P.ROL 3512 - QZW.MD.ROL13 ST 3113 - QZW.RM.ST 3213 - QZW.R.ST 3313 - QZW.U.ST 3413 - QZW.P.ST 3513 - QZW.MD.ST14 SEC 3114 - QZW.RM.SEC 3214 - QZW.R.SEC 3314 - QZW.U.SEC 3414 - QZW.P.SEC 3514 - QZW.MD.SEC15 O 3115 - QZW.RM.O 3215 - QZW.R.O 3315 - QZW.U.O 3415 - QZW.P.O 3515 - QZW.MD.O
POL Policies QZ QoS ZoneRUL Rules E End-to-endDP Decision Point C ClientCLS Classifier W Wide Area Network (WAN)MK Marker S ServicesCTL Control O OtherMTR Meter RM Resource ManagerID Identifier R ResourceTAG Tag U UserACT Action P PeeringMEA Measurement MD Management DataROL Roles SLA Service Level AgreementST State A ApplicationsSEC Security O OtherO Other
Taxonomy:Work in Progress
q Goal is to point to existing standards
§ qzw.r.router.core.std.ietf.rfc.<url>q Need to remember why we are doing this§ increase common understanding and language
§ provide a QoS centric view of end-to-end environments that enable customers and vendors to articulate requirements and solutions
§ Serve as a repository for current standards initiatives
§ Aid to Taskforce in determining where to put collective efforts
QoS Ontology
q Based on Proposed IEEE Standard http://suo.iee.org
q Proposal is for Taskforce to develop QoS Ontology
q Teknowledge has already started QoS work
q Currently Ontology contains:§ 882 Total terms – 200 are QoS centric
§ 3031 Assertions – 374 Rules
q Teknowledge has open source ontology engine and tool kit
q QoS ontology can serve as the basis for well understood SLAs which are negotiated by software, not people
Joint Sessions at Conference
q Enterprise Management Forum § (Ray, Martin & Karl – tag team ) on CIM its applicability
to QoS and the possibility of working together on related schemas
q Mobile Management Forum§ Richard Tennett - great perspective on QoS
requirements with respect to SLAs and the guarantees of service within mobile sessions.
q Real-Time Forum§ Dave Emery emphasized the importance of relating
QoS to the ISO stack from application level down and the importance of agreeing on a QoS language is validated by real-time as well.
Business Scenario Session
q Terry Blevins presented an introduction to writing a business scenario
q Group Agreed to produce scneario
q Boeing offered to participate in that scenario as the large enterprise customer/services provider.
q Scenario workshops scheduled for Aug-Sept time-frame
Business Plan Discussion
q Reviewed QoS Business Plan - Roadmap & Priorities and Milestones Refined§ Round Table Discussion 1/Qtr§ Sept, 01 - Target Service Providers
§ Business Scenario (Boeing) - Q3,01§ Refine and Package Deliverables and Message for
Presentation to other Consortia - 9/01§ Liaison with Other Consortia – Discussion around
applicability, prioritization, and approach strategies § IETF, TMF, IEEE, DIF - Q3, 01§ DMTF, SNIA, OMG, WIFM, MPLS, .NET,etc. - Q4, 01 of
§ Monthly On-line Forum with Webcasts and threaded discussion (August – Application Profiling)
RealTime & Embedded Systems
Forum
Joseph I. Bergmann
Membership
q Continues to grow§ Hewlett-Packard Company
§ J Consortium
§ LynuxWorks, Inc.
§ The Boeing Company
§ Open Systems Joint Task Force
Forum Co-Chairs
q Dave Emery, Mitre
q Glen Logan, OSJTF
Roadmap
q The planned deliverables for 2001/2002 are as follows.§ Test suites for POSIX Profiles§ Certification program for POSIX profiles§ White Papers§ POSIX Conformance§ Security for Real-time and Embedded Systems
§ Security Profile for Real-time and Embedded Systems
§ Another test and certification program
Report on RT Working Groups
q 1.Testing and Certification Group
§ Did not meet
q 2. Real-time Profiling Group
§ Addressed working with the Linux Community on a Profile for Real-time Linux
q 3. Real-time Security group.
§ This group has produced charter and draft security profile for real-time and embedded systems
Report on RT Working Groups
q 4. Joint Real-time and QoS Working Group reported under the QoS Task Force
q 5. New Areas addressed by the Forum
§ Safety Critical Software Certification
§ Hard Real-time Java requirements
Next Meetings
q It is proposed to hold the next working group session on the East coast in early October. Host TBD.
q The next conference is in Amsterdam in October. It is proposed only to hold an open plenary session there and no working sessions
SecurityForum
Steve Jenkins
Security Forum
q New Chairman – Steve Jenkins (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
q Attendance down on expectations
q Well-attended Security Briefing Tuesday pm –3 varied topics drew good interest
q Good progress on Managers Guide to Information Security – 50% of document ready for editing, remainder in next 3 weeks.
q Realistic plan to complete MGIS by October
Security Forum
q Confirmed scope and approach of Guide to Security Patterns
q Discussed our Security patterns with Architecture Forum and agreed actions to relate Building Blocks to Patterns
q Conducted detailed review of a Pattern definition, and established plans for regular future reviews via teleconferences
Security Forum
q Future work:§ Companion documents to MGIS
§ Candidates for possible open source projects
§ Liaisons with other forums (EMA, MMF, Architecture, ALP) on security issues
Security Forum
q Future Agenda Items§ Privacy
§ Retail Sector (ARTS)
§ Public infrastructure
§ Intrusion detection
§ Computer forensics
§ Digital Rights Management
§ Law/Regulation
§ Economics (Risk vs. Money)
Conferences
John Meyer& Ian Lloyd
The Open Group Conference
Confirmed plenary speakers include: Bruce Schneier -Counterpane Internet Security, Bill Hancock - Exodus, Ed Gerck -
Safevote, Martin Kendrick - Brand Communications, Jacques Francoeur - Chief Trust Officer, Mathew Yeo - Steptoe & Johnson
LLP
Register Now!
Active Loss PreventionAmsterdam 22-26 October 2001
Reminder
TV program features The Open Group
On Saturday July 28, US viewers of the CNBC network's .COM program at 12 pm EDT will see The
Open Group featured.
The Program will be repeated on the Bravo network at 8 am on 30th July 30, and at the same
time on August 3.