The Open Group Conference April 2001Forums Report
q Introductionq Customer Councilq Security & eCommerceq Enterprise Managementq Directory Interoperabilityq Architectureq Quality of Serviceq RealTime & Embedded Systemsq Mobile Management Forumq EMA Forumq Looking Forward
Berlin, April 2001Forum Report
q Broad Participation§ 215 in Berlin§ >40 to date on the WEB
q Wireless Enabled Enterprise§ Practical demonstration§ Industry showcase§ Case studies§ Workshops
q Regular Forum Meetings
The Wireless-Enabled Enterprise ConferenceEvaluation
Graph shows the percentage of attendees ranking on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is highest markValue & Quality av. 3.9, Presenters Knowledge av. 4.2, Relevance to Organization av. 3.8N= 43 (43 responses from 120 delegates)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Value & Quality Presenters Knowledge Relevance to Organization
1 2 3 4 5
Comparison with Previous Conferences
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
San
Die
go -
Man
agem
ent
Lond
on -
Mob
ile
Aus
tin -
Dire
ctor
y
Was
hing
ton
-D
epen
dabi
lity
San
Jos
e -
eFlo
w
Ber
lin -
Wir
eles
sE
nter
pris
e
Value
Knowledge
Relevance
Graph showing the average scores Questions:Value and quality of the agenda and presentationsPresenters knowledge of their subjectRelevance to your organization
CustomerCouncil
Joint Customer/Supplier Councils Meetingq Attendance§ 20 Attendees§ 12 Customer Council§ 4 Supplier Council§ 4 Open Group Staff
q Suggestion to have more frequent joint sessions§ Requirements analysis§ Coordination§ …possibly every 3rd session or so§ …need longer meeting time if structured as working session
Joint Customer/Supplier Councils Meeting Agendaq Introductionq Governing Board Reportq Requirement Gathering§ Sources, Mechanisms, Participation
q Requirement Tracking§ Requirements Journal
q Requirement Refining§ Introduction to Architectural Approach
q Open Discussion§ Discussion, Feedback, New Issues
q Luncheon Tutorial§ Business Scenarios
Requirements Process
§ Gather§ Multiple sources (members, plenary presentations,
forums, other consortia)
§ Refine§ Advocacy – Who is interested in pursuing further?§ Generalization – How does it address broader base?§ Sponsorship – Council support for further action?
§ Progress§ Open Group Forums§ Ad hoc Member Interest Groups§ Other appropriate venues (consortia, etc.)
§ Track§ Requirements-to-Solutions
Next Steps
q Establish template and guidelines for capturing requirements from all sources§ Table-top forms for capturing requirements at Plenary
Sessions§ Web accessible for easy access§ Simple posting and visibility mechanism
q Engage member participation between Member Conferences§ On-line discussions§ Focused Teleconferences
q Progress available set of requirements through Business Scenario workshops
Security & eCommerce
Forum
Security Forum
q Two documents§ A Manager’s Guide to Information Security§ Information Security Patterns
q Joint meeting with Architecture Forum§ Discussed alignment of documents§ Agreed to provide security patterns input to
TOGAFq Informative presentations
A Manager’s Guide to Information Security
q Determined Document Structure§ Audience – Business managers§ Size – 25-35 pages§ Style – Informative§ Chapters and structure
q Assigned Chapters
Information Security Patterns
q Document§ Determined document outline and audience§ Catalog candidates§ Determined pattern template§ Determined pattern process life cycle
q Reviewed Subject Descriptor Pattern
Plans through Austin Meeting
q A Manager’s Guide to Information Security§ Document content finalized§ Edited draft available§ Final Security Forum review at meeting§ Output: submission to Company Review
q Information Security Patterns§ Submit patterns and glossary§ Review content in teleconferences§ Draft document available before meeting§ May not be complete
§ Finalize existing pattern content at meeting§ Output: input to TOGAF ‘next’ by September§ Ongoing effort: goal to publish book of security patterns
EnterpriseManagement
Forum
Pegasus
q Primary focus on addressing technical issues§ Multiple providers for same class§ Non-blocking (asynchronous) mode§ Threading and Locking§ Protocol adapters§ Bulk transfer
q Implementation functionally completeby end of May
q Presentations at DMTF DevCon, NMS 2001
ARM 3.0
q Application Response Measurement§ Draft completed§ Formal review in progress§ Completed by mid-May§ Plan to build on the announcement
AIC 1.1
q Application Instrumentation and Contro§ New version of the standard nearing
completion§ Java interfaces§ Formal review in June§ Completed standard by next meeting
XSLM
q Software License Use Management§ Still on track for Issue 3 revision in July§ Hope to be able to announce formal review at
next meeting§ Next release after that will be a further 12
months
Austin Meeting
q Theme will be manageabilityq Strong speakers from user, vendor, analyst
communitiesq Sessions focusing on specific application
areasq Technology Day show-casing Enterprise
Management Forum projectsq “CIM 101” tutorial – modeling for users
DirectoryInteroperability
Forum
Meeting Structure
qWednesday – members only for DIF business
qThursday – open meeting for information dissemination
DIF Business
q New Vice Chair elected: Alexis Bor of Directory Works
q Plans laid to launch Works With LDAP 2000 on May 10 at N+I
q Directory in the Key Management Infrastructure Business Scenario:§ Directory Guidelines to be developed§ New scenario to be produced on Identity
Management, with particular reference to mobile aspects
DIF Business
q Further input on Standards Prioritizationreviewed – intention to finalize post Austin
q Need to develop overall picture of Directories and The Internet – and ensure that the standards needed are developed
q Next DirConnect: plugfest to advance Works With LDAP 2000
q Global Directory Forum planned for Paris
Information Dissemination
q The Value of Directory – DEN and service-provision application examples
q Certification for Directory Servers and Applications – The Open Brand for LDAP 2000 and Works With LDAP 2000
q Directory Standardization – X.500, IETF, XML, EEMA
q The DIF and its Working Groups –Certification, DCE Integration, SP-DNA, Security Standards Co-ordination
Priorities for Q2
q Launch of Works With LDAP 2000 and Plugfest
q Overall picture of Directories and the Internet
§ Standards Prioritization
§ Business Scenarios
§ Global Directory Forum
q Develop/Implement DIF Marketing Plan
The Directory Interoperability Forum
Thank You
ArchitectureForum
The FORUM
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 Greenslade
Frietuna Computer Consultants (UK)
§ Vice Chairs Hugh FisherNational Health Service (UK)Barry SmithThe MITRE Corporation (USA)
Forum membership
q Membership - 19 Silver, 9 Gold, 2 Platinumq 14 participants at this meetingq 5 new to the forum
At this meeting
q TOGAFq Business scenariosq Patternsq TABBq TMF liaisonq Architect(ure) certification
CurrentCurrent
TOGAF evolutionq 2000: TOGAF - version 6§ New software architectural view§ Architectural views aligned with IEEE 1471§ Integration of other initiatives US DoD, IEEE 1003.23
q TOGAF guide§ bridge between executive overview and full documentation§ Phil Holmes to act as commissioning editor
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
Patterns
q Presentation on Evolvable Systems though Architectural Patterns (ESAP)§ work being done at University of Reading§ uses both TOGAF and ADML
q Joint meeting on patterns with Security Forum§ Goals:§ Clarify terminology and concepts - e.g. pattern, building block,
view, etc.§ Identify points of leverage and synergy
§ Joint e-mail discussion forum
TABB
q IPR of Technical Architecture Builder and Browser (TABB) is with The Open Group
q Presentation and demonstration on TABB by developer -Chris Dobbyn
q TABB website availableq Future strategy§ TABB as an entry-level architecture tool§ Exploration of configuration management and constraint
capabilities
§ Support for ADML
TeleManagement Forum liaison
q Presentation by Tony Richardson - Director of Applied Architecture
q Developing New Generation Operations Systems and Software (NGOSS)
q Agreement to explore potential synergy
Architect(ure) certification
q Discussion and agreement to canvass inputq Progress by e-mail
Quality of ServiceTask Group
Open Session – Wednesday
q Live & Recorded Webcast
§ Relevant and Exciting QoS Experience
;^D§ http:/www.opengroup.org/~mgl/webcast
§ Great potential!
q Sessions 1,2,3 Speakers Discussing Current Industry Standards, Initiatives & Technologies forQoS
“Specification of Inter-Operator Interfaces to ensure end-to-end IP
QoS”
Eurescom P1008Participants:
BT, eircom, Telefónica, Telekom Austria, Telia
Denis McCarthy (eircom/Broadcom)
Open Service Creation in Premium IP Networks
Michael SmirnovGlobal Networking
GMD FOKUS
IST project CADENUS -CCreation aand DD eployment of EnEnd-UUser SServices
in Premium IP Networks
Quality of Service:The BIG Picture
Open Group Quality of Service Task Force Conference April 2001 - Berlin
Chris Sluman
OPEN-IT Ltd., London, England
Multi-level Resource Management:
Making the Entire System Work Together
Douglas M. WellsThe Open Group<[email protected]>
<http://www.opengroup.org/RI>
Research Group
ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library) from a QoS and Service Level Management Perspective
Presented by Geoff BeeleyTOG QoS Berlin 25th April 2001
CONSIGNIA
The new name for The Post Office Group
WIAD and QoSR for Reliability and Availability in an All Wireless Network Infrastructure
Megaxess Inc. Megaxess GmbH12800 Middlebrook Road RingstraBe 1200Trevion II Suite 206 15236 Frankfurt Germantown, MD 20874 (Oder) Germany
USA+ 1 301 540 2600 + 49 335 546 2200
Dr. Antonio Ruiz, Vice-President and CTO
Dr. Dhadesugoor R. Vaman, Chairman & CEO
Text e-mailText e-mail
E-commerceE-commerceERPERP
VoiceVoice
Citrix/SNACitrix/SNA
Internet/intranetInternet/intranet
Streaming Video
Streaming Video Video
ConferencingVideo
ConferencingE-mail with
AttachmentsE-mail with
Attachments MusicMusicBandwidth
Requirements
HIGH
LOW HIGHLatency Sensitivity
QoS Enables the Next Major Wave of IP Bandwidth Demand
Working Group Sessions
q Definition Phase – Q2q Evaluation Phase & Decision Phase Q3q Implementation Phase Q4
Definition Phase - What Existsq Many Consortia working on Standards/Policy:
§ IETF, DMTF, CADENUS, OMG, MPLS
q After prioritizing members’ requirements identify and evaluate pertinent efforts in other consortia
q Populate Component Map with Existing standards efforts; interfaces protocols etc.
q White Paper for QoS Task Force
Evaluation Phase
q What is the Level of Applicability to Customers & Vendors Requirements?
§ What does the Standard/Policy achieve – how well does it fit?
q Level of Support & Market Adoption?§ Working Group (who’s involved)§ Specification (Draft/Standard/Revisions)§ Implementations (Prototype/Product)§ Evolution of Implementations§ Interoperability of Implementation
Decision Phase
q Given what is discovered in the Evaluation phase – Decide if most beneficial to:
§ Which existing standardization efforts should we support via gathering & driving requirements?§ Which consortia to have partner with and how closely to work
with? § Initiate efforts to increase market awareness and adoption of
QoS solutions?§ Initiate efforts to provide testing, interoperability, certification
for existing standards? § Initiate new efforts for QoS architecture, standards, policies?
q Publish Roadmap Q3
Implementation Phase – Q4
Based on Definition, Evaluation, Decision Phases
and According to Roadmap – To Be published in Q3
QoS Task Force Component Model – Starting Point
q Major Deliverable over past Quarter – Component Model§ Derived by Steering Committee over Past Quarter
q Objective for Component Model – Point of Reference§ Provide a reference for constituents involved in end-to-end
QoS.
§ Provide a reference of functional components and QoSarchitecture from system-wide level and further detailed at a unit level.
q Work in Progress - shaped and validated by Members
NOTE:
APP is Application
SLA is Service Level Agreement (Objectives)
U S E R-1 U
U S E R- N U
A P P-1 U
A P P- N U
Client Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
Client Network
& Computing Resources
Service Network & Computing Resources
Wide Area Network
Resources
U S E R- N S
A P P-1 S
A P P-2 S
U S E R-1 S
A P P- N S
...
...
...
...
CLIENT QoSSEGMENT
See speaker notes for more information
TOP LEVEL COMPONENT MAP FOR SINGLE AUTHORITY E2E SOLUTIONS
SERVICEQoS SEGMENT
WAN QoSSEGMENT
Wide Area Network
Resource Managers
Service Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
End to End
Resource Managers
End to End Resource Mgmt. SLAs
END TO END QoS ZONE
MGMT DATA MGMT DATA
NOTE:
APP is Application
SLA is Service Level Agreement (Objectives)
U S E R-1 U
U S E R- N U
A P P-1 U
A P P- N U
Client Network &
Comput ing
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
U S E R- N S
A P P-1 S
A P P-2 S
U S E R-1 S
A P P- N S
...
...
...
...
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 &
Comput ing
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.
Dynamic QoSArchitecture
Time Svc
SysConfig Proc Fail
P&S MessagingCORBA
RMIDCOM
Distributed Technologies
Time Share & Real-Time
Jini Bluetooth
Dynamic Net Config
Time Share & Real-Time
Jini/LUS Dir
Network Services
Time Share & Real-Time
CPU/mem
MeasurePDP
PolicyInstantiation & Location
DiskCPUMemoryUsersApplicationsSecurityNW ResourcesNW Appliances
Meter
KEYPlatformsSystem Level SWPolicy negotiation/ImplementationMeasurementsNetwork Technologies/Services
Mark
I/O
Protocols
Classify
ID TAG
Proc Start
Disk
PEP
Action Measure
ManagementCenter
Active Policies
Time Svc
SysConfig Proc Fail
CPU/mem
MeterMark
I/O
Protocols
Classifiy
ID TAG
Proc Start
Disk
PEP
Action Measure
Active Policies
LDAP
LDAP
COPS
802.1p Diffserve
PIBPIB
PEP
Working Groups
Re-Organized from Tech/Business => Vertical QoS Segments
§ QoS Edge Technology Working Group§ QoS Real-Time (Joint Working Group)§ QoS Storage§ QoS Customer§ QoS Architecture
§ QoS Business§ QoS Service Provider
Working Group Actions
q Identify current standards, I/F, protocols that exist for their particular area of interest
q Identify where the holes areq Identify what pertinent policies/service level
agreement parameters they envision for their areas.
q Populate Component Map with findingsq Evolve architecture of component map to
insure better fit for their working group
Joint Real-Time/QoS WG
q Joint meeting on Thursdayq Overview of QoS and RealTimeq Action – application scenario to identify real-time qos
variables at component levelsq QoS Action: provide the application scenario,
SLA/policy sample, provide associated taxonomyq RT Action: Take bottom up approach with the
application scenario and describe how QoS would be measured/delivered in the individual components involved in the scenario.
QoS Membership
QoS Task Force Membership
Allot CommunicationsCompaq Computer Corp.Hewlett-PackardNetRealityPredictive Systems AGSitara NetworksTeknowledge
)
For more information on Membership Contact:Birgit Hartje – [email protected] Hickey – [email protected]
AuremaDISAMEGAXESSThe MITRE CorporationNeTraverseQuarry TechnologiesSun Microsystems
RealTime & Embedded Systems
Forum
Joint Session with Quality Of Service Task Forceq Agreed to work together § Its a hard problem that needs to be bounded
q Approach to take is to produce a canonical example or examples
q This will identify a set of requirements to achieve Quality of Service
Joint QoS/ RTES Session
q Initial Example selected q A service to burn a CDR across a network
supporting multiple users
Joint QoS/ RTES Session
q Approach to be as follows§ Create a QoS taxonomy for the problem
together with policies§ Consider how to solve the problem with
existing components (standards)§ Identify augmentation of
APIs/Services needed to add attributes of resource consumption
§ Produce a mapping to measurement of behavior, and how to control behavior
Profiles
q Paper on how to state conformance requirements and select profiles progressing and expect to complete next quarter
q Investigation needed for POSIX.13 profiles group and EL/IX specification§ possible cooperation/integration§ would avoid unnecessary duplication
Security Interest Group
q Intends a call for information§ Believes only a few items are specific to real-
time and embedded systems§ Would like to validate with a baseline to identify
what is missing§ May need to segment by industry
The Way Forward
q Roadmap q Test and Certification framework§ POSIX profiles test development§ Other opportunities
q Next meeting in May (teleconference)
Mobile Management Forum
Accomplishments
Plans Q2, Q3, Q4 2001
Accomplishments
q Met with Japanese Delegation Planning Sept q Conference Program (high attendance among
delegates present – second day attendance above expectations)
q Live Demonstration successfully showed session management and synchronization
q Working Groups Presentations +40 attendeesq DeliverablesØ Session Management Requirements Document
Going Forward
q Reviewed our Approach to Dateq Session Management Discussed Relevance Japanq AAA Working GroupØ AAA Integration
q Sync GroupØ Functional Framework
q Content GroupØ Business Case for ROIØ Architectural White Paper
EMA Forum
EMA Forum
q No meeting in Berlinq EMA Forum now
formed§ The education and
advocacy group for The Open Group
§ Technical work likely to transition into other Forums
q Member benefits to be reinstated Q2/2001§ WEB site§ www.ema.org
§ On-line magazine§ The Message
§ eMail Forums and alerts
q EMA-2001 (July 2001)§ Tutorials§ Education tracks
LookingForward
Future Conference Schedule
q July 16th-20th (Austin)§ Manageability 2001:
The Well Managed eNterprise
§ EMA-2001
q October 22nd-26th
(Amsterdam)§ Dependability-2001:
Active Loss Prevention is better than the cure
q January 21st-25th 2002§ Open Forum 2002
q April 8th-12th 2002§ Wireless 2002
q July 22nd-26th 2002
q October 21st-25th
§ Dependability 2002
Themes are tentativeLocations not determined
