From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Sat Jun 4 06:03:54 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:03:54 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft Message-ID: <006e01c568f5$1a2cb160$1fe61fac@ORD> Hi all, Please find attached draft GGF press release for SCRM at GGF14. We will review this at upcoming June 6th call. It has also uploaded to SCRM-private page: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/GGF-press-release/en/ 1 We value your feedback. ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GG - SCRM release 20050604.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/5f3f238c/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Sat Jun 4 06:11:25 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 20:11:25 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Joint SDOs next call (June 6th) proposed agenda Message-ID: <007201c568f6$265d2810$1fe61fac@ORD> Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for SCRM telecon on June 6th Monday from 8:15am to 9:15am (CDT). [TO DO] Hiro: Circulate draft SCRM-WG charter [done] Hiro: Circulate draft press release [done] All: To read the latest "Landscape summary table" and populate the summary sheet accordingly. - Landscape summary table https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/landscape-summary-tab le/ - Latest summary template (v3.5) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/sdo-template-draft/ Jay, Dejan, Hiro, Jamie: Revise grouping of existing and emerging groups [AGENDA] (1) Early discussion (10 minutes) - telecon minutes approval. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/minutes-20050509/en/1 - Agenda Bashing (2) SCRM press release review (20 minutes) Review GGF draft press release. Agree on this draft Quotes by other SDOs (Due June 20) Analyst discussions (Candidates list) Supporting press releases - Press release schedule https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/scrm-press-release-pl an/en/2 - Draft GGF press release https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/GGF-press-release/en/ 1 (3) Public SCRM-WG charter review (20 minutes) Review SCRM-WG draft charter and 7 Q&A Agree on these draft documents Submit them to GFSG for approval Expect to be approved before GGF14 - draft charter https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/SCRM-WG-charter-docum ent/en/1 - 7 Q&A draft https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/SCRM-WG-7QA-document/ en/1 (4) Landscape project: (10 minutes) Status review and next steps - specification summary list https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/landscape-summary-tab le/ (5) Wrap up Another call (June 20 or 13) for status check? Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: landscape spec list 20050603.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: sdo-template-draft-v3.5.doc Type: application/msword Size: 84480 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Minutes 05-09-05.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32256 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment-0001.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PressReleasePlan 20050603.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 108544 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment.ppt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GG - SCRM release 20050604.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment-0002.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050527b.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment-0003.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM-WG-Charter 20050527b.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050604/c2d3fdc9/attachment-0004.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Sat Jun 4 08:13:57 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:13:57 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Joint SDOs next call (June 6th) proposed agenda In-Reply-To: <007201c568f6$265d2810$1fe61fac@ORD> Message-ID: <000601c56907$49a1b870$04e61fac@ORD> I forgot to add dial-in information for the call. June 6th (Monday): 6:15am(PDT) = 8:15am(CDT) = 9:15am(EDT) = 2:15pm(UK) = 3:15pm(CET) = 10:15pm(JST) US Toll free 1866 2485984 US Toll West coast +1 4089616553 East Coast +1 7183541169 Netherlands Toll free 0800 0223422 Netherlands Toll +31 202013852 Japan Toll free 0034 800400552 Japan Toll +813 35708256 The participant code is: 2051278# Talk to you Monday. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:11 PM > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Joint SDOs next call (June 6th) proposed agenda > > Hi all, > > The following is a proposed agenda for SCRM telecon on June 6th Monday > from 8:15am to 9:15am (CDT). > > [TO DO] > Hiro: Circulate draft SCRM-WG charter [done] > Hiro: Circulate draft press release [done] > > All: To read the latest "Landscape summary table" and populate the > summary sheet accordingly. > > - Landscape summary table > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/landscape-summary- > tab > le/ > - Latest summary template (v3.5) > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/sdo-template-draft/ > > Jay, Dejan, Hiro, Jamie: Revise grouping of existing and emerging groups > > [AGENDA] > (1) Early discussion (10 minutes) > - telecon minutes approval. > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/minutes- > 20050509/en/1 > - Agenda Bashing > > (2) SCRM press release review (20 minutes) > Review GGF draft press release. > Agree on this draft > Quotes by other SDOs (Due June 20) > Analyst discussions (Candidates list) > Supporting press releases > > - Press release schedule > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/scrm-press-release- > pl > an/en/2 > > - Draft GGF press release > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/GGF-press- > release/en/ > 1 > > (3) Public SCRM-WG charter review (20 minutes) > Review SCRM-WG draft charter and 7 Q&A > Agree on these draft documents > Submit them to GFSG for approval > Expect to be approved before GGF14 > > - draft charter > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/SCRM-WG-charter- > docum > ent/en/1 > > - 7 Q&A draft > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/SCRM-WG-7QA- > document/ > en/1 > > (4) Landscape project: (10 minutes) > Status review and next steps > > - specification summary list > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/landscape-summary- > tab > le/ > > (5) Wrap up > Another call (June 20 or 13) for status check? > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto From bwijnen at lucent.com Mon Jun 6 05:21:12 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:12 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550745B107@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> If you want to include IETF, then I need IETF approval. I do not know if I can get so before June 20th. I have put it on IESG and IAB agendas for this week. That does not mean that I can guarantee a reponse by the end of the week. We'll have to see how they react. As I have stated before, I personally find it far too much "marketing". I do not see why anyone needs a press-release. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 13:04 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft > > > Hi all, > > Please find attached draft GGF press release for SCRM at GGF14. > We will review this at upcoming June 6th call. > > It has also uploaded to SCRM-private page: > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/GGF > -press-release/en/ > 1 > > We value your feedback. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > From bwijnen at lucent.com Mon Jun 6 05:21:12 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:12 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550745B108@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:32 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft > > > Hi all, > > Please find a draft charter of SCRM-WG and related seven questions and > answers. They are fully based on our signed MoU and our discussions. > I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we? > Although we plan to review these documents at the upcoming SCRM call > on June 6th, I would give a big welcome to questions and/or comments > by email in advance. > W.r.t. the charter, I think that we should add explicit dates and time-slots for formal approval process byu each organization. Maybe others can just decide for their organization, but if you want a formal OK from IETF on any output documents, then I suspect that I need to go through 4-week IETF Last Call and IESG approval process. If anyone in IETF has issues with the documents in Last Call, often several more weeks are needed to get agreement. And the result may be that they do want changes to the document as well. Now, the proposed documents are (I guess) informational documents, and so they may pass through IETF much more easily. > After getting green light at the next SCRM call, I will revise and submit > these documents to GGF steering group for approval. If it runs smoothly, > the WG is approved before GGF14 (June 27). > I have no objection to forming the WG. Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant. Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I motivate current IETF participants to also become individual participants of the GGF WG-to-be? w.r.t. the Q&A, question 4. - I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave Sidor involved. - I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work. Bert > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 6 06:35:31 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:35:31 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550745B107@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: <000a01c56a8b$db435ab0$12e61fac@ORD> Thanks Bert for your notes, > If you want to include IETF, then I need IETF approval. Yes, I fully understand. This is the reason we share this draft 3 week ahead of time. > I do not know if I can get so before June 20th. > I have put it on IESG and IAB agendas for this week. Thanks Bert. > As I have stated before, > I personally find it far too much "marketing". > I do not see why anyone needs a press-release. GGF thinks press release is worth much and hopes it does not keep you long. Talk to you soon. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:21 PM > To: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft > > If you want to include IETF, then I need IETF approval. > I do not know if I can get so before June 20th. > I have put it on IESG and IAB agendas for this week. > That does not mean that I can guarantee a reponse > by the end of the week. We'll have to see how > they react. > > As I have stated before, > I personally find it far too much "marketing". > I do not see why anyone needs a press-release. > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 13:04 > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM press release draft > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Please find attached draft GGF press release for SCRM at GGF14. > > We will review this at upcoming June 6th call. > > > > It has also uploaded to SCRM-private page: > > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm-private/document/GGF > > -press-release/en/ > > 1 > > > > We value your feedback. > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 6 07:16:04 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:16:04 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550745B108@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: <000f01c56a91$860d2de0$12e61fac@ORD> Thanks Bert, > I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we? You are correct. I should say: They are fully based on the MoU sighed by subset of participating SDOs and also our discussions. > I have no objection to forming the WG. > Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant. > Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I > motivate current IETF participants to also become individual > participants of the GGF WG-to-be? I believe our consensus is later. We will encourage technical experts from all SDOs to participate this new WG as individual. Each member can input, discuss, improve a deliverable of this WG but we don't ask to get formal approval of his/her home team. > - I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary > of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the > same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave > Sidor involved. Yes, Sidor and I talked over phone on April 28 and I understood both use the almost the same mechanism/process. However, scope/target and goals/output are quite a bit different. I think we should add their work to answer #4. > - I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs > already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more > overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work. If you can tell me what is their work, I am more than happy to add them to answer #4, also. Let's discuss these issues at the call. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:21 PM > To: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft > > Inline > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:32 > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Please find a draft charter of SCRM-WG and related seven questions and > > answers. They are fully based on our signed MoU and our discussions. > > > I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we? > > > Although we plan to review these documents at the upcoming SCRM call > > on June 6th, I would give a big welcome to questions and/or comments > > by email in advance. > > > > W.r.t. the charter, I think that we should add explicit dates and > time-slots for formal approval process byu each organization. > Maybe others can just decide for their organization, but if > you want a formal OK from IETF on any output documents, then > I suspect that I need to go through 4-week IETF Last Call and > IESG approval process. If anyone in IETF has issues with the > documents in Last Call, often several more weeks are needed > to get agreement. And the result may be that they do want > changes to the document as well. > > Now, the proposed documents are (I guess) informational documents, > and so they may pass through IETF much more easily. > > > After getting green light at the next SCRM call, I will revise and submit > > these documents to GGF steering group for approval. If it runs smoothly, > > the WG is approved before GGF14 (June 27). > > > I have no objection to forming the WG. > Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant. > Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I > motivate current IETF participants to also become individual > participants of the GGF WG-to-be? > > > w.r.t. the Q&A, question 4. > > - I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary > of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the > same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave > Sidor involved. > - I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs > already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more > overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work. > > Bert > > Thanks, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 6 07:23:15 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:23:15 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] ITU-T SG4 documents (Joint SDOs next call (June 6th) proposed agenda) In-Reply-To: <42A3DE6D.43C36191@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <000001c56a92$85622b60$12e61fac@ORD> Hi all, Dave's email bounced. I guess it does not accept attached zip file. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:26 PM > To: Hiro Kishimoto > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: *MJ-REJECTED* Re: [scrm-pvt] Joint SDOs next call (June 6th) proposed > agenda > > Hiro et al, > > Attached are completed templates for several ITU-T SG4 documents. > > Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3016.0 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 87040 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3016.1 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 87552 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0001.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3016.2 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 88576 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0002.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3016.3 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 90624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0003.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3016.4 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 90112 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0004.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3050 series v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 90624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0005.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: M.3060 v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 100352 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050606/b2c406aa/attachment-0006.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 6 11:21:10 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 01:21:10 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document draft Message-ID: <002101c56ab3$c003ec60$13e61fac@ORD> Hi all, Thank you very much for joining today's call. The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday (June 9). (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. Thanks again, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050606.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050607/146c7e25/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050606.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050607/146c7e25/attachment-0001.doc From bwijnen at lucent.com Tue Jun 7 16:44:47 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:44:47 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release [was: Revised press release draft and charter document draft] Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E841@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> The draft press release now says: Other standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), have expressed interest in participating in this activity. Could that be changed into .............., have expressed an interest and will encourage their technical experts to participate in this activity. I do not yet have a quote from IETF. Not sure we want to do a quote, and even if we do, then it will depend on your acceptance of the above suggested change I think. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > draft > > > Hi all, > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > (June 9). > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > Thanks again, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > From bwijnen at lucent.com Tue Jun 7 16:44:47 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:44:47 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release dra ft and charter document draft] Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E840@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> In the WG charter I see: Focus/Purpose Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall collaboration on next generation standards for web service based management of networked and individual resources. WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from Several major Standards... into Several people/individuals from major Standards... I know that some of you speak "for their organization". But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. I believe such is true for some others as well. I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and commitment can participate I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some of us do not officially repersent our organisations): While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and commitment can participate During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would be a good idea) to change: Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, October 2005. Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for public review, January, 2006. Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, April, 2006. into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of the organizations that are listed. So how about: Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, October 2005. 1a: Review in each organization and collect comments, November 2005 Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for public review, January, 2006. 2a: In paralelle review in each org and collect comments or OK Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, April, 2006. If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed to have the final review/ok from each organization. Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should speed up the process of the glossary document. I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls already. You do state that the primary communication channel is documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such a pressure on repetitive conf calls. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > draft > > > Hi all, > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > (June 9). > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > Thanks again, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > From djsidor at nortel.com Tue Jun 7 22:55:15 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:55:15 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release draft and charter document draft] References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E840@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: <42A66C23.D6B07475@americasm01.nt.com> Bert et al, I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from the press release: "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall collaboration on next generation standards for web service based management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a cross-institutional technical working group which will produce informational document with the primary objective of converging common terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating in this activity." Dave "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > In the WG charter I see: > > Focus/Purpose > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > standards for web service based management of networked > and individual resources. > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > Several major Standards... > into > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > commitment can participate > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > interest and commitment can participate > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > be a good idea) to change: > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > October 2005. > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > public review, January, 2006. > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > April, 2006. > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > October 2005. > 1a: Review in each organization and > collect comments, November 2005 > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > public review, January, 2006. > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > and collect comments or OK > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > April, 2006. > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > draft > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > (June 9). > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > Thanks again, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > From djsidor at nortel.com Tue Jun 7 22:58:15 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:58:15 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release [was: Revised press release draft and charter document draft] References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E841@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: <42A66CD6.FF4D418E@americasm01.nt.com> Bert et al, I can live with Bert's proposed change. Editorial: there is an "and" missing. The ITU-T will not be providing a quotation so you can remove the placeholder for the ITU-T quotation. Dave "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > The draft press release now says: > > Other standards development organizations such as the > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International > Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization > Sector (ITU-T), have expressed interest in participating > in this activity. > > Could that be changed into > > .............., have expressed an interest and will encourage > their technical experts to participate in this activity. > > I do not yet have a quote from IETF. > Not sure we want to do a quote, and even if we do, then it will > depend on your acceptance of the above suggested change I think. > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > draft > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > (June 9). > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > Thanks again, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Wed Jun 8 02:50:31 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:50:31 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release In-Reply-To: <42A66CD6.FF4D418E@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <004301c56bfe$bf90f2e0$57d5190a@ORD> Thanks Bert and Dave, Since your comments make sense to me, I've added them to the draft press release. Please have a look. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:58 PM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release [was: Revised press release > draft and charter document draft] > > Bert et al, > > I can live with Bert's proposed change. Editorial: there is an "and" > missing. > > The ITU-T will not be providing a quotation so you can remove the > placeholder for the ITU-T quotation. > > Dave > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > The draft press release now says: > > > > Other standards development organizations such as the > > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International > > Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization > > Sector (ITU-T), have expressed interest in participating > > in this activity. > > > > Could that be changed into > > > > .............., have expressed an interest and will encourage > > their technical experts to participate in this activity. > > > > I do not yet have a quote from IETF. > > Not sure we want to do a quote, and even if we do, then it will > > depend on your acceptance of the above suggested change I think. > > > > Bert > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > (June 9). > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050608.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050608/3fe65b7d/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Wed Jun 8 02:50:30 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:50:30 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter In-Reply-To: <42A66C23.D6B07475@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <003f01c56bfe$be6eba00$57d5190a@ORD> Thanks Bert and Dave, Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. Please have a look. ---- Hiro Kishimoto ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release draft > and charter document draft] > > Bert et al, > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from > the press release: > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > informational document with the primary objective of converging common > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating > in this activity." > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > Focus/Purpose > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > standards for web service based management of networked > > and individual resources. > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > Several major Standards... > > into > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > commitment can participate > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > > be a good idea) to change: > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > October 2005. > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > public review, January, 2006. > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > April, 2006. > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > October 2005. > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > collect comments, November 2005 > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > public review, January, 2006. > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > and collect comments or OK > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > April, 2006. > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > Bert > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > (June 9). > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56320 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050608/c3d406d8/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050608/c3d406d8/attachment-0001.doc From bwijnen at lucent.com Wed Jun 8 04:42:26 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:42:26 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E94D@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Minor nit on modified WG charter text: and will encourage their technical expert to participate in this activity. I would make it "experts", i.e. plural. Other than that, thanks for the modifications. I think I can defend this in IETF. Hope to have a better feel for that after Thursdays IESG telechat. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 09:51 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to > the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. > > Please have a look. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised > press release draft > > and charter document draft] > > > > Bert et al, > > > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an > alternative for > > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first > paragraph to > > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the > first paragraph > > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO > names taken from > > the press release: > > > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been > > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall > > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > > management of networked and individual resources. As a > result of this > > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > > informational document with the primary objective of > converging common > > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of > the various > > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity > is called > > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task > Force (DMTF), the > > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum > (TMF), and the > > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and > > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in > participating > > in this activity." > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > > > Focus/Purpose > > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > > standards for web service based management of networked > > > and individual resources. > > > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > > Several major Standards... > > > into > > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > > commitment can participate > > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > > > be a good idea) to change: > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > October 2005. > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > April, 2006. > > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > October 2005. > > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > > collect comments, November 2005 > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > > and collect comments or OK > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > April, 2006. > > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might > be needed > > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after > the landscape > > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > (June 9). > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > From bwijnen at lucent.com Wed Jun 8 04:42:27 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:42:27 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751E94F@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Thanks Hiro. Looks good. Again I would change "expert" into "experts" in sentence: and will encourage their technical expert to Again, I do not see much use in a press release, but this way I can live with it. I can only tell Thursday (possibly even Friday) if there will be an IETF quote. But I doubt there will be one. Will let you know. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 09:51 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release > > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > Since your comments make sense to me, I've added them to the draft > press release. Please have a look. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:58 PM > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release [was: Revised > press release > > draft and charter document draft] > > > > Bert et al, > > > > I can live with Bert's proposed change. Editorial: there is an "and" > > missing. > > > > The ITU-T will not be providing a quotation so you can remove the > > placeholder for the ITU-T quotation. > > > > Dave > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > The draft press release now says: > > > > > > Other standards development organizations such as the > > > Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International > > > Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization > > > Sector (ITU-T), have expressed interest in participating > > > in this activity. > > > > > > Could that be changed into > > > > > > .............., have expressed an interest and will encourage > > > their technical experts to participate in this activity. > > > > > > I do not yet have a quote from IETF. > > > Not sure we want to do a quote, and even if we do, then it will > > > depend on your acceptance of the above suggested change I think. > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > (June 9). > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > From djsidor at nortel.com Wed Jun 8 16:05:04 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:05:04 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter References: <003f01c56bfe$be6eba00$57d5190a@ORD> Message-ID: <42A75D80.BCDC692B@americasm01.nt.com> Hiro et al, Two additional proposals regarding the Q&A handout: - clause 4: Please change to "The ITU-T Next Generation Network Management Focus Group (NGNMFG) and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) TISPAN WG8 are generating summaries of management standards applicable to NGN. However, the scope of this working group is believed to be broader in scope." - clause 5: Please revise to be consistent with the charter text: " have agreed to encourage participation of their technical experts in the WG." Thanks Dave Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to > the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. > > Please have a look. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release draft > > and charter document draft] > > > > Bert et al, > > > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for > > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to > > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph > > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from > > the press release: > > > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been > > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall > > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > > management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this > > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > > informational document with the primary objective of converging common > > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various > > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called > > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the > > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the > > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and > > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating > > in this activity." > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > > > Focus/Purpose > > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > > standards for web service based management of networked > > > and individual resources. > > > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > > Several major Standards... > > > into > > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > > commitment can participate > > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > > > be a good idea) to change: > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > October 2005. > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > April, 2006. > > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > October 2005. > > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > > collect comments, November 2005 > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > > and collect comments or OK > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > April, 2006. > > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed > > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape > > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > > draft > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > > (June 9). > > > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > ---- > > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc > GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc > SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Wed Jun 8 22:02:55 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:02:55 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter In-Reply-To: <42A75D80.BCDC692B@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <000901c56c9f$bc5abbf0$41e61fac@ORD> Thanks Dave and Bert, Jay and I have added your comments in the draft documents. We've also made a couple of word-smithing but did not change contents and intentions. Please give your feedbacks and quote by the end of business Thursday. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Dave Sidor > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:05 AM > To: Hiro Kishimoto > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > Hiro et al, > > Two additional proposals regarding the Q&A handout: > > - clause 4: Please change to "The ITU-T Next Generation Network > Management Focus Group (NGNMFG) and the European Telecommunications > Standards Institute (ETSI) TISPAN WG8 are generating summaries of > management standards applicable to NGN. However, the scope of this > working group is believed to be broader in scope." > > - clause 5: Please revise to be consistent with the charter text: " have > agreed to encourage participation of their technical experts in the WG." > > Thanks > > Dave > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > > > Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to > > the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. > > > > Please have a look. > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release > draft > > > and charter document draft] > > > > > > Bert et al, > > > > > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for > > > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to > > > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > > > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph > > > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from > > > the press release: > > > > > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been > > > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall > > > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > > > management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this > > > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > > > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > > > informational document with the primary objective of converging common > > > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various > > > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called > > > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > > > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > > > > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > > > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the > > > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > > > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > > > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the > > > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > > > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and > > > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > > > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating > > > in this activity." > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > > > > > Focus/Purpose > > > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > > > standards for web service based management of networked > > > > and individual resources. > > > > > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > > > Several major Standards... > > > > into > > > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > > > commitment can participate > > > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > > > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > > > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > > > > be a good idea) to change: > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > October 2005. > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > April, 2006. > > > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > > > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > October 2005. > > > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > > > collect comments, November 2005 > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > > > and collect comments or OK > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > April, 2006. > > > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed > > > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape > > > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > > > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > > > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > > > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > > > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > draft > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > > > (June 9). > > > > > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > ---- > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter- > Revision20050608.doc > > GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File > (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > > > > Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc > > SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050609a.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56832 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050609/1703b768/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050609a.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44032 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050609/1703b768/attachment-0001.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050609a.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050609/1703b768/attachment-0002.doc From djsidor at nortel.com Thu Jun 9 10:03:47 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:03:47 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter References: <000901c56c9f$bc5abbf0$41e61fac@ORD> Message-ID: <42A85A53.F8DB7CC6@americasm01.nt.com> Hiro et al, All 3 look good to me. Thanks for your accommodation of our concerns. Dave Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > Thanks Dave and Bert, > > Jay and I have added your comments in the draft documents. > We've also made a couple of word-smithing but did not change > contents and intentions. > > Please give your feedbacks and quote by the end of business > Thursday. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > > Of Dave Sidor > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:05 AM > > To: Hiro Kishimoto > > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > > > Hiro et al, > > > > Two additional proposals regarding the Q&A handout: > > > > - clause 4: Please change to "The ITU-T Next Generation Network > > Management Focus Group (NGNMFG) and the European Telecommunications > > Standards Institute (ETSI) TISPAN WG8 are generating summaries of > > management standards applicable to NGN. However, the scope of this > > working group is believed to be broader in scope." > > > > - clause 5: Please revise to be consistent with the charter text: " have > > agreed to encourage participation of their technical experts in the WG." > > > > Thanks > > > > Dave > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > > > > > Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to > > > the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. > > > > > > Please have a look. > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > > > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: Revised press release > > draft > > > > and charter document draft] > > > > > > > > Bert et al, > > > > > > > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest an alternative for > > > > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the first paragraph to > > > > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > > > > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the first paragraph > > > > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO names taken from > > > > the press release: > > > > > > > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) have been > > > > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to improve overall > > > > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > > > > management of networked and individual resources. As a result of this > > > > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > > > > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > > > > informational document with the primary objective of converging common > > > > terminology and organizing and summarizing the interplay of the various > > > > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This activity is called > > > > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > > > > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > > > > > > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > > > > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the > > > > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > > > > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > > > > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum (TMF), and the > > > > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > > > > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and > > > > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > > > > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest in participating > > > > in this activity." > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > > > > > > > Focus/Purpose > > > > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > > > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > > > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > > > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > > > > standards for web service based management of networked > > > > > and individual resources. > > > > > > > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > > > > Several major Standards... > > > > > into > > > > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > > > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > > > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > > > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > > > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > > > > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > > > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > > > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > > > > commitment can participate > > > > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging that some > > > > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > > > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > > > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant technical skills, > > > > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > > > > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe such would > > > > > be a good idea) to change: > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > October 2005. > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > April, 2006. > > > > > into something that more explicitly calls out review in each of > > > > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > October 2005. > > > > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > > > > collect comments, November 2005 > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document V1.0 ready for > > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > > > > and collect comments or OK > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > April, 2006. > > > > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a might be needed > > > > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > > > > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > > > > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" after the landscape > > > > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we use agreed > > > > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > > > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > > > > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences every 2 weeks". > > > > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > > > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I personally have > > > > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > > > > already. You do state that the primary communication channel is > > > > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > > > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > > draft > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > > > > (June 9). > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter- > > Revision20050608.doc > > > GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File > > (application/msword) > > > Encoding: base64 > > > > > > Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc > > > SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > > Encoding: base64 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050609a.doc > GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050609a.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050609a.doc > SCRM-WG 7QA 20050609a.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: SCRM Press Release 20050609a.doc > SCRM Press Release 20050609a.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 From bwijnen at lucent.com Thu Jun 9 16:53:26 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:53:26 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751EE9F@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Hiro, these drafts are fine with me. The IETF does not want to make a statement for you to quote, so please remove that piece. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 05:03 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > > Thanks Dave and Bert, > > Jay and I have added your comments in the draft documents. > We've also made a couple of word-smithing but did not change > contents and intentions. > > Please give your feedbacks and quote by the end of business > Thursday. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org > [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > > Of Dave Sidor > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:05 AM > > To: Hiro Kishimoto > > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > > > Hiro et al, > > > > Two additional proposals regarding the Q&A handout: > > > > - clause 4: Please change to "The ITU-T Next Generation Network > > Management Focus Group (NGNMFG) and the European Telecommunications > > Standards Institute (ETSI) TISPAN WG8 are generating summaries of > > management standards applicable to NGN. However, the scope of this > > working group is believed to be broader in scope." > > > > - clause 5: Please revise to be consistent with the charter > text: "...have > > agreed to encourage participation of their technical > experts in the WG." > > > > Thanks > > > > Dave > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Bert and Dave, > > > > > > Since all of your comments make sense to me, I've added them to > > > the draft charter and 7 Questions & answers. > > > > > > Please have a look. > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > ---- > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave Sidor [mailto:djsidor at nortel.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 12:55 PM > > > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > > > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter [was: > Revised press release > > draft > > > > and charter document draft] > > > > > > > > Bert et al, > > > > > > > > I can agree with most of Bert's proposals but suggest > an alternative for > > > > his first proposal. Instead I propose to revise the > first paragraph to > > > > be consistent with the press release's first paragraph. Possible > > > > revision involves the removal of the SDO names from the > first paragraph > > > > and the addition of a new second paragraph with the SDO > names taken from > > > > the press release: > > > > > > > > "Several major Standards Development Organizations > (SDOs) have been > > > > carrying on a dialogue for about one year to try to > improve overall > > > > collaboration on next generation standards for web service based > > > > management of networked and individual resources. As a > result of this > > > > discussion these SDOs have motivated the formation of a > > > > cross-institutional technical working group which will produce > > > > informational document with the primary objective of > converging common > > > > terminology and organizing and summarizing the > interplay of the various > > > > technology and specifications, an a taxonomy. This > activity is called > > > > "Standards development organizations Collaboration on networked > > > > Resources Management" or SCRM (can be pronounced scrum). > > > > > > > > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > > > > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task > Force (DMTF), the > > > > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > > > > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > > > > Industry Association (SNIA), the Tele Management Forum > (TMF), and the > > > > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Other standards development > > > > organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task > Force (IETF) and > > > > the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication > > > > Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have expressed interest > in participating > > > > in this activity." > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In the WG charter I see: > > > > > > > > > > Focus/Purpose > > > > > Several major Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), > > > > > including DMTF, GGF, IETF, ITU-T, OASIS, SNIA, TMF, W3C > > > > > have been carrying on a dialogue for about one year to > > > > > try to improve overall collaboration on next generation > > > > > standards for web service based management of networked > > > > > and individual resources. > > > > > > > > > > WOuld anyone have a problem to change the first few words from > > > > > Several major Standards... > > > > > into > > > > > Several people/individuals from major Standards... > > > > > I know that some of you speak "for their organization". > > > > > But I do not, I rather speak as an individual who happens to > > > > > also be AD for the IETF OPS and Management area. > > > > > I believe such is true for some others as well. > > > > > > > > > > I would also prefer reqording of the last para on page 1: > > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > > participating SDOs can equally contribute to and promote > > > > > the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular public WG in GGF > > > > > and anyone with relevant technical skills, interest and > > > > > commitment can participate > > > > > I would rather see something aka (again acknowledging > that some > > > > > of us do not officially repersent our organisations): > > > > > While this WG will be organized within GGF this does not > > > > > mean GGF will lead the SCRM work. Rather, GGF will just > > > > > provide the required infrastructure for SCRM-WG. All > > > > > participating (people from) SDOs can equally contribute > > > > > to and promote the SCRM work. The SCRM-WG is regular > > > > > public WG in GGF and anyone with relevant > technical skills, > > > > > interest and commitment can participate > > > > > > > > > > During teh call, I also suggested (and still believe > such would > > > > > be a good idea) to change: > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > October 2005. > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document > V1.0 ready for > > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > April, 2006. > > > > > into something that more explicitly calls out review > in each of > > > > > the organizations that are listed. So how about: > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 1: Draft Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > October 2005. > > > > > 1a: Review in each organization and > > > > > collect comments, November 2005 > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 2: Landscape Document > V1.0 ready for > > > > > public review, January, 2006. > > > > > 2a: In paralelle review in each org > > > > > and collect comments or OK > > > > > Deliverable 1/Milestone 3: Final Landscape Document V1.0, > > > > > April, 2006. > > > > > If there are still comments from 2a, then a step 3a > might be needed > > > > > to have the final review/ok from each organization. > > > > > > > > > > Similar additional steps for 2nd deliverable would be good. > > > > > > > > > > I am actually surprised that we do the "glossary" > after the landscape > > > > > document. Seems to me we would do betetr to ensure we > use agreed > > > > > upon terminology in our landscape document, so maybe we should > > > > > speed up the process of the glossary document. > > > > > > > > > > I am very concerned with having "Teleconferences > every 2 weeks". > > > > > I do not find teleconferences very productive. Why cannot the > > > > > majority of the work be done on a mailing list? I > personally have > > > > > far too many fixed-time weekly or bi-weekly conference calls > > > > > already. You do state that the primary communication > channel is > > > > > documents and mailing list. So I do not see why there is such > > > > > a pressure on repetitive conf calls. > > > > > > > > > > Bert > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > > > > > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 18:21 > > > > > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > > > > > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > draft > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for joining today's call. > > > > > > > > > > The attached is a revised press release draft and charter document > > > > > draft, Jay and I write-up based on the discussions we had today. > > > > > > > > > > We've agreed to do the following two things by this Thursday > > > > > (June 9). > > > > > > > > > > (1) Review these documents and send back suggested changes. > > > > > (2) Provide your supporting quote if possible. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > ---- > > > > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter- > Revision20050608.doc > > GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File > (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > > > > Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc > > SCRM-WG 7QA 20050608.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > From plh at w3.org Thu Jun 9 17:35:17 2005 From: plh at w3.org (Philippe Le Hegaret) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:35:17 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter In-Reply-To: <000901c56c9f$bc5abbf0$41e61fac@ORD> References: <000901c56c9f$bc5abbf0$41e61fac@ORD> Message-ID: <1118356517.4772.69.camel@localhost> Hiro, I'm catching up on your documents following our Advisory Committee meeting. I expect to review them tomorrow and I'll try to make sure to get a response from W3C regarding the press release and the Working Group charter for Monday, no later than Wednesday. Given my past participation and the lack of interest from the W3C membership, I might request that you move the mention of W3C in the Working Group charter and the Press Release to cite it along with the IETF. The Q&A document seems fine. Also, I don't expect to get a quote from a Member for the PR. I apologize for this late notice, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050610/fa39593b/attachment.pgp From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Thu Jun 9 22:17:23 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:17:23 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter In-Reply-To: <1118356517.4772.69.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <00c701c56d6a$eb7a7800$57d5190a@ORD> Thanks Philippe for your notes, I fully understand your situation and look forward to hearing from you early next week. Thanks again, ---- Hiro Kishimoto > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Philippe Le Hegaret > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 7:35 AM > To: Hiro Kishimoto > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: RE: [scrm-pvt] Revised WG charter > > > Hiro, > > I'm catching up on your documents following our Advisory Committee > meeting. I expect to review them tomorrow and I'll try to make sure to > get a response from W3C regarding the press release and the Working > Group charter for Monday, no later than Wednesday. Given my past > participation and the lack of interest from the W3C membership, I might > request that you move the mention of W3C in the Working Group charter > and the Press Release to cite it along with the IETF. The Q&A document > seems fine. Also, I don't expect to get a quote from a Member for the > PR. > I apologize for this late notice, > > Philippe From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Fri Jun 10 00:33:24 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:33:24 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release with DMTF quote Message-ID: <012f01c56d7d$ebe96bd0$57d5190a@ORD> Hi all, DMTF provides feedback and quote. Thank you very much, Karen. She proposes to change the third paragraph more positive wording. I hope it is ok for everyone. Also, DMTF quote is now included. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050610.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050610/38618b4a/attachment.doc From bwijnen at lucent.com Fri Jun 10 03:46:07 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:46:07 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Away for 3 weeks Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751EF46@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Hiro (and other scrm participants), I will leave (tomorrow) for a 3 week vacation. I know that Brian Carpenter and David Kessens (both well known IETF participants and both also IESG members) have individually subscribed to this mailing list and are following it. So they will continue to follow and participate in this effort. I believe that Brian will be at the upcoming GGF meeting in Chicago, and so he can participate if any initial SCRM WG activities will take place there. Bert From bwijnen at lucent.com Fri Jun 10 03:46:07 2005 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:46:07 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release with DMTF quote Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550751EF45@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Change to 3rd para is fine by me Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 07:33 > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Cc: 'Karen Strong'; 'Eric Seymour' > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release with DMTF quote > > > Hi all, > > DMTF provides feedback and quote. Thank you very much, Karen. > She proposes to change the third paragraph more positive wording. > I hope it is ok for everyone. > > Also, DMTF quote is now included. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Sat Jun 11 08:20:02 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:20:02 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised Press Release with SNIA's quote Message-ID: <42AAE502.3090600@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, Vincent provides excellent SNIA's quote, Thanks Vincent. Attached is a revised press release draft with quotes from SNIA, DMTF, and GGF. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050611.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38912 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050611/8afd4771/attachment.doc From replogle at ggf.org Sat Jun 11 21:09:54 2005 From: replogle at ggf.org (Joel Replogle) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:09:54 -0500 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Minutes from June 6, 2005 Telecon Message-ID: All - Here are the minutes from the June 6 SCRM telecon. Thanks, Joel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Minutes 06-06-05.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050611/ba97ee97/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Joel Replogle Standards Facilitator Global Grid Forum replogle at ggf.org From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 13 15:06:07 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 05:06:07 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Final SCRM-WG charter draft Message-ID: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much Mark for stepping up. I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text by DMTF. If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050614.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050614/ae8b4ae6/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM-WG 7QA 20050609a.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40960 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050614/ae8b4ae6/attachment-0001.doc From plh at w3.org Mon Jun 13 16:24:16 2005 From: plh at w3.org (Philippe Le Hegaret) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:24:16 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Final SCRM-WG charter draft In-Reply-To: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up > for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much > Mark for stepping up. > > I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made > a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text > by DMTF. > > If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it > to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. Hiro, please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It should read: [[ Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their technical experts to participate in this activity. ]] As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active participation in the Working Group. Thank you, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050613/9967ba45/attachment.pgp From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Tue Jun 14 04:14:47 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:14:47 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Final SCRM-WG charter draft In-Reply-To: <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> References: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <42AEA007.6060604@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi Philippe, The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up >>for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much >>Mark for stepping up. >> >>I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made >>a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text >>by DMTF. >> >>If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it >>to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. > > > Hiro, > > please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It > should read: > [[ > Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the > Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of > Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other > standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? > Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide Web > Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their > technical experts to participate in this activity. > ]] > > As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active > participation in the Working Group. > > Thank you, > Philippe > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF SCFRM-WG-Charter-Revision20050614b.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050614/b92c32d6/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Tue Jun 14 05:39:52 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:39:52 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter Message-ID: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, As Mark Linesch explained at the last call on June 6th, GGF will deliver quarterly newsletter at GGF14. The attached is a draft article about the SCRM. Since this draft is using the same text of our press release and WG charter, I think everyone is happy with it. Please have a look. If you have any comments or question, please let me know by the end of business Wednesday (CDT US time). Sorry for the very short notice but this is our deadline. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM newsletter 20050614.doc Type: application/msword Size: 52736 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050614/d2ca58d1/attachment.doc From Adams_Wayne at emc.com Tue Jun 14 06:43:48 2005 From: Adams_Wayne at emc.com (Adams_Wayne at emc.com) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:43:48 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter Message-ID: <61CE5763EC726144907B6AC6AA215C230CB330CD@corpmx8.corp.emc.com> Hiro, If a member of the GGF has a question, your newsletter does not provide a contact. Would that be Mark L., yourself, or the new chair Mark C. ? Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:40 AM To: scrm-private at ggf.org Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter Hi all, As Mark Linesch explained at the last call on June 6th, GGF will deliver quarterly newsletter at GGF14. The attached is a draft article about the SCRM. Since this draft is using the same text of our press release and WG charter, I think everyone is happy with it. Please have a look. If you have any comments or question, please let me know by the end of business Wednesday (CDT US time). Sorry for the very short notice but this is our deadline. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Tue Jun 14 08:49:49 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:49:49 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter In-Reply-To: <61CE5763EC726144907B6AC6AA215C230CB330CD@corpmx8.corp.emc.com> References: <61CE5763EC726144907B6AC6AA215C230CB330CD@corpmx8.corp.emc.com> Message-ID: <42AEE07D.4040009@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi Wayne, Good point. GGF newsletter has Mark Linesch's and my contact info on the last page. However, each article does not have a contact info. Newsletter archive: http://www.gridforum.org/ggf_newscal_newsletter.htm I will double check with Steve Crumb, GGF executive director, if we can add the contact info to our article. I think candidate co-chairs, Mark Carlson and Jay Unger, should be the contact, right? Thanks, --- Hiro Kishimoto Adams_Wayne at emc.com wrote: > Hiro, > > If a member of the GGF has a question, your newsletter does not provide a > contact. Would that be Mark L., yourself, or the new chair Mark C. ? > > Wayne > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:40 AM > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter > > Hi all, > > As Mark Linesch explained at the last call on June 6th, GGF will deliver > quarterly newsletter at GGF14. The attached is a draft article about > the SCRM. Since this draft is using the same text of our press release > and WG charter, I think everyone is happy with it. Please have a look. > > If you have any comments or question, please let me know by the > end of business Wednesday (CDT US time). Sorry for the very short > notice but this is our deadline. > > Thanks, From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Tue Jun 14 10:33:05 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:33:05 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Revised draft Press Release with OASIS quote Message-ID: <000001c570f6$62f53530$15e01fac@ORD> Hi all, OASIS provides their quote. Thank you very much, Carol. Their quote is now included. Deadline for press release is this Friday. Although the draft is very close to the final shape, please let me know if you have any farther comments. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM Press Release 20050614.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050615/752231ed/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Tue Jun 14 20:31:11 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:31:11 +0900 Subject: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG (Re: [scrm-pvt] Final SCRM-WG charter draft) In-Reply-To: <42AEA007.6060604@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> <42AEA007.6060604@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42AF84DF.8030702@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, GGF Steering Group has reviewed SCRM-WG charter on Tuesday and "conditionally approved and entered one week last call." This is GGF's regular process and it means if no steering group member objects by next Monday, the WG will be formally approved automatically. Thank you very much for your cooperation! ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi Philippe, > > The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. > I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > >> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up >>> for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much >>> Mark for stepping up. >>> >>> I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made >>> a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text >>> by DMTF. >>> >>> If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it >>> to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Hiro, >> >> please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It >> should read: >> [[ >> Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style >> collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the >> Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of >> Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking >> Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other >> standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering >> Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? >> Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide Web >> Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their >> technical experts to participate in this activity. >> ]] >> >> As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active >> participation in the Working Group. >> >> Thank you, >> Philippe >> From brc at zurich.ibm.com Wed Jun 15 03:57:39 2005 From: brc at zurich.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:57:39 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter In-Reply-To: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42AFED83.9060707@zurich.ibm.com> Looks OK to me Brian Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > As Mark Linesch explained at the last call on June 6th, GGF will deliver > quarterly newsletter at GGF14. The attached is a draft article about > the SCRM. Since this draft is using the same text of our press release > and WG charter, I think everyone is happy with it. Please have a look. > > If you have any comments or question, please let me know by the > end of business Wednesday (CDT US time). Sorry for the very short > notice but this is our deadline. > > Thanks, From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Wed Jun 15 21:24:37 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:24:37 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter In-Reply-To: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42B0E2E5.1080902@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, Karen Strong gave me DMTF's comments. Thanks Karen. I've revised the article and also add contact information as Wayne suggested. The revised article is attached. GGF will remain soft and hard copy of our newsletter until July 27 (GGF14 day one). Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Karen wrote; > The intro speaks of GGF 14 in the future tense (as if this newsletter > will be seen prior to the event). I know the hard copies will go out at > GGF, but do you know if this will be posted electronically prior to > 6/27? If so, that would be releasing the SCRM news early (before the > press release), which is inadvisable. Either the SCRM info should be > removed from the newsletter, or any electronic posting should be held > until the 27th (in which case they may want to change the tense). I've change the very first sentence to "as our community prepared." However, I do not change the other two sentences because the newsletter will deliver day one and several events happens on and after day one. > -The article on page 3 states that the group has been discussing "next > generation standards for web service based management of networked and > individual resources." Web services are not mentioned in the press > release (except within GGF's quote). This seems to be a difference in > meaning, and we would recommend removing the words "web service based." deleted. > -On page 4, the second to the last paragraph includes a number of > descriptions of the landscape document I don't think the group has > agreed to -- and includes a timeframe for publishing (end of this year). > To avoid setting expectations that the group may not meet, we would > recommend removing this paragraph. I've replace this explanation by the text in the press release. > -The intro and article state that the SCRM "has been carrying on a > dialogue for almost a year - holding several face-to-face meetings and > monthly conference calls to improve coordination on next generation > standards." This is not mentioned in the press release. While this may > be construed by some as slow progress, I don't personally have a problem > with it appearing in their newsletter. Just wanted to point it out in > case statements of that sort had been a source of contention in the SCRM > group. We intend to say the SCRM is well prepared. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM newsletter 20050616.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45056 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050616/f4d5ca8e/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Thu Jun 16 09:27:40 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:27:40 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft article for GGF newsletter In-Reply-To: <42B0E2E5.1080902@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> <42B0E2E5.1080902@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42B18C5C.3090908@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, Mark Linesch has wordsmithed the very first line of his front page. "As our community gathers at GGF14 in Chicago, ..." I am sure this is ok for everyone. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > Karen Strong gave me DMTF's comments. Thanks Karen. > I've revised the article and also add contact information as > Wayne suggested. The revised article is attached. > > GGF will remain soft and hard copy of our newsletter until > July 27 (GGF14 day one). > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Karen wrote; > > The intro speaks of GGF 14 in the future tense (as if this newsletter > > will be seen prior to the event). I know the hard copies will go out at > > GGF, but do you know if this will be posted electronically prior to > > 6/27? If so, that would be releasing the SCRM news early (before the > > press release), which is inadvisable. Either the SCRM info should be > > removed from the newsletter, or any electronic posting should be held > > until the 27th (in which case they may want to change the tense). > > > I've change the very first sentence to "as our community prepared." > However, I do not change the other two sentences because the newsletter > will deliver day one and several events happens on and after day one. > > > > -The article on page 3 states that the group has been discussing "next > > generation standards for web service based management of networked and > > individual resources." Web services are not mentioned in the press > > release (except within GGF's quote). This seems to be a difference in > > meaning, and we would recommend removing the words "web service based." > > > > deleted. > > > > -On page 4, the second to the last paragraph includes a number of > > descriptions of the landscape document I don't think the group has > > agreed to -- and includes a timeframe for publishing (end of this year). > > To avoid setting expectations that the group may not meet, we would > > recommend removing this paragraph. > > > > I've replace this explanation by the text in the press release. > > > > -The intro and article state that the SCRM "has been carrying on a > > dialogue for almost a year - holding several face-to-face meetings and > > monthly conference calls to improve coordination on next generation > > standards." This is not mentioned in the press release. While this may > > be construed by some as slow progress, I don't personally have a problem > > with it appearing in their newsletter. Just wanted to point it out in > > case statements of that sort had been a source of contention in the SCRM > > group. > > > > We intend to say the SCRM is well prepared. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SCRM newsletter 20050616b.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050616/25cbce33/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Wed Jun 22 03:42:56 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:42:56 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG) In-Reply-To: <42AF84DF.8030702@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> <42AEA007.6060604@jp.fujitsu.com> <42AF84DF.8030702@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42B92490.1030405@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, Now, SCRM-WG has been formally approved and will have a first WG session on June 29 (Wed) 4-5:30pm Wellington2 room (max 220 people) at The Westin Michigan Avenue, Chicago. However, announcement including press release will be held by GGF office until June 27th. If you plan to come to GGF14 and this session, please let us know. You are very welcome. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > GGF Steering Group has reviewed SCRM-WG charter on Tuesday and > "conditionally approved and entered one week last call." > This is GGF's regular process and it means if no steering group > member objects by next Monday, the WG will be formally approved > automatically. > > Thank you very much for your cooperation! > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >> Hi Philippe, >> >> The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. >> I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. >> >> Thanks, >> ---- >> Hiro Kishimoto >> >> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up >>>> for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much >>>> Mark for stepping up. >>>> >>>> I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made >>>> a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text >>>> by DMTF. >>>> >>>> If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it >>>> to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hiro, >>> >>> please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It >>> should read: >>> [[ >>> Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style >>> collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the >>> Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of >>> Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking >>> Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other >>> standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering >>> Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? >>> Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide Web >>> Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their >>> technical experts to participate in this activity. >>> ]] >>> >>> As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active >>> participation in the Working Group. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Philippe >>> > > > From kreger at us.ibm.com Wed Jun 22 12:20:07 2005 From: kreger at us.ibm.com (Heather Kreger) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:20:07 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG) In-Reply-To: <42B92490.1030405@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: I'll be able to attend, thanks Heather Kreger STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems" kreger at us.ibm.com 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 Hiro Kishimoto Sent by: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org 06/22/2005 04:42 AM To scrm-private at ggf.org cc Subject [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG) Hi all, Now, SCRM-WG has been formally approved and will have a first WG session on June 29 (Wed) 4-5:30pm Wellington2 room (max 220 people) at The Westin Michigan Avenue, Chicago. However, announcement including press release will be held by GGF office until June 27th. If you plan to come to GGF14 and this session, please let us know. You are very welcome. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > GGF Steering Group has reviewed SCRM-WG charter on Tuesday and > "conditionally approved and entered one week last call." > This is GGF's regular process and it means if no steering group > member objects by next Monday, the WG will be formally approved > automatically. > > Thank you very much for your cooperation! > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >> Hi Philippe, >> >> The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. >> I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. >> >> Thanks, >> ---- >> Hiro Kishimoto >> >> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up >>>> for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much >>>> Mark for stepping up. >>>> >>>> I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made >>>> a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text >>>> by DMTF. >>>> >>>> If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it >>>> to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hiro, >>> >>> please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It >>> should read: >>> [[ >>> Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style >>> collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), the >>> Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of >>> Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking >>> Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other >>> standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering >>> Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? >>> Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide Web >>> Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their >>> technical experts to participate in this activity. >>> ]] >>> >>> As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active >>> participation in the Working Group. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Philippe >>> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050622/4dbc138f/attachment.htm From kreger at us.ibm.com Wed Jun 22 13:04:15 2005 From: kreger at us.ibm.com (Heather Kreger) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:04:15 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion Message-ID: Hello all, I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape and taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those discussions going forward. IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that expresses our view on the value of using Web services as a management platform to the industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some existing standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work on our radar a little further down the road. We've been informally referring to this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the landscape and taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those on this working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if our views are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to accellerate the development of this group's deliverables. Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting whenever the agenda permits. Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web Services, A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges facing the IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and strategy for the evolution of management systems to support emerging business environments. It explains how a common approach for manageability (using Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management solutions for both existing systems and systems based upon emerging Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and unifies several popular management models and technologies in a way to manage any IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the foundation standards for this Roadmap. You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp IBM: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-mroadmap/ CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 Thank you, Heather Kreger STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards kreger at us.ibm.com 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050622/be4985ae/attachment.html From andreaw at cisco.com Wed Jun 22 13:41:44 2005 From: andreaw at cisco.com (Andrea Westerinen (andreaw)) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:41:44 -0700 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG) Message-ID: I will attend as well. Andrea > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org > [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:43 AM > To: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is > almost approved by GFSG) > > Hi all, > > Now, SCRM-WG has been formally approved and will have a first > WG session on June 29 (Wed) 4-5:30pm Wellington2 room (max 220 > people) at The Westin Michigan Avenue, Chicago. However, > announcement including press release will be held by GGF > office until June 27th. > > If you plan to come to GGF14 and this session, please let us know. > You are very welcome. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > GGF Steering Group has reviewed SCRM-WG charter on Tuesday and > > "conditionally approved and entered one week last call." > > This is GGF's regular process and it means if no steering > group member > > objects by next Monday, the WG will be formally approved > > automatically. > > > > Thank you very much for your cooperation! > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > >> Hi Philippe, > >> > >> The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. > >> I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> ---- > >> Hiro Kishimoto > >> > >> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up > >>>> for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much > >>>> Mark for stepping up. > >>>> > >>>> I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and > also made a > >>>> minor modification which is proposed to the press > release text by > >>>> DMTF. > >>>> > >>>> If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will > submit it to > >>>> GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hiro, > >>> > >>> please move W3C to the second sentence in the second > paragraph. It > >>> should read: > >>> [[ > >>> Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style > >>> collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task > Force (DMTF), > >>> the Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the > Advancement of > >>> Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking > >>> Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). > >>> Other standards development organizations such as the Internet > >>> Engineering Task Force (IETF), the International > Telecommunication > >>> Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have expressed an > interest and will > >>> encourage their technical experts to participate in this activity. > >>> ]] > >>> > >>> As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active > >>> participation in the Working Group. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Philippe > >>> > > > > > > > From brc at zurich.ibm.com Thu Jun 23 04:26:52 2005 From: brc at zurich.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:26:52 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM-WG has benn approved (Re: SCRM-WG is almost approved by GFSG) In-Reply-To: <42B92490.1030405@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42ADE72F.9030306@jp.fujitsu.com> <1118697857.14359.38.camel@localhost> <42AEA007.6060604@jp.fujitsu.com> <42AF84DF.8030702@jp.fujitsu.com> <42B92490.1030405@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42BA805C.1080105@zurich.ibm.com> Hiro, I will be there (IETF hat on, IBM hat off, standing in for Bert Wijnen). Brian Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > Now, SCRM-WG has been formally approved and will have a first > WG session on June 29 (Wed) 4-5:30pm Wellington2 room (max 220 > people) at The Westin Michigan Avenue, Chicago. However, announcement > including press release will be held by GGF office until June 27th. > > If you plan to come to GGF14 and this session, please let us know. > You are very welcome. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> GGF Steering Group has reviewed SCRM-WG charter on Tuesday and >> "conditionally approved and entered one week last call." >> This is GGF's regular process and it means if no steering group >> member objects by next Monday, the WG will be formally approved >> automatically. >> >> Thank you very much for your cooperation! >> ---- >> Hiro Kishimoto >> >> Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >> >>> Hi Philippe, >>> >>> The attached is a revised charter draft reflecting your request. >>> I will submit it to GGF Steering Group for WG approval. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ---- >>> Hiro Kishimoto >>> >>> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 05:06 +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Mark Carlson, Vice Chair of the SNIA Technical Council, steps up >>>>> for co-chair candidate for emerging SCRM-WG. Thank you very much >>>>> Mark for stepping up. >>>>> >>>>> I've added his name to the draft charter of SCRM-WG and also made >>>>> a minor modification which is proposed to the press release text >>>>> by DMTF. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no farther comments on this draft, I will submit it >>>>> to GGF Steering Group for WG approval tomorrow. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hiro, >>>> >>>> please move W3C to the second sentence in the second paragraph. It >>>> should read: >>>> [[ >>>> Organizations expected to participate in this round-table style >>>> collaboration include: the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), >>>> the >>>> Global Grid Forum (GGF), the Organization for the Advancement of >>>> Structured Information Standards (OASIS), the Storage Networking >>>> Industry Association (SNIA), and the Tele Management Forum (TMF). Other >>>> standards development organizations such as the Internet Engineering >>>> Task Force (IETF), the International Telecommunication Union ? >>>> Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), and the World Wide >>>> Web >>>> Consortium (W3C) have expressed an interest and will encourage their >>>> technical experts to participate in this activity. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> As this time, I didn't support from the W3C membership for active >>>> participation in the Working Group. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Philippe >>>> >> >> >> > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Thu Jun 23 08:17:11 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:17:11 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42BAB657.4050305@jp.fujitsu.com> Thanks Heather for this pointer. Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for public comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing Domain. http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it is good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG session at GGF14. Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this session? Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Heather Kreger wrote: > Hello all, > > I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape and > taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those > discussions going forward. > > IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that expresses our > view on the value of using Web services as a management platform to the > industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some existing > standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work on our > radar a little further down the road. We've been informally referring to > this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. > > We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the landscape and > taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those on this > working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if our views > are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to accellerate the > development of this group's deliverables. > > Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting whenever > the agenda permits. > > Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: > CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have > recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web Services, > A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges facing the > IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and strategy for > the evolution of management systems to support emerging business > environments. It explains how a common approach for manageability (using > Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management solutions for > both existing systems and systems based upon emerging Service-Oriented > Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based > systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and unifies > several popular management models and technologies in a way to manage any > IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. > > We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the > foundation standards for this Roadmap. > > You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: > HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp > IBM: > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-mroadmap/ > > CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 > > Thank you, > Heather Kreger > STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards > kreger at us.ibm.com > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 > From djsidor at nortel.com Fri Jun 24 00:36:39 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:36:39 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion Message-ID: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> Hiro, Now that the SCRM WG is an official GGF WG, I assume it has its own (and new) mailing list, web/ftp site, and possibly GGF-related procedures to follow. If so, can you point us to the related information? Thanks Dave Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > Thanks Heather for this pointer. > > Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level > requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also > make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for public > comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing > Domain. > > http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 > > If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it is > good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG session > at GGF14. > > Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this > session? > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Heather Kreger wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape and > > taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those > > discussions going forward. > > > > IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that expresses our > > view on the value of using Web services as a management platform to the > > industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some existing > > standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work on our > > radar a little further down the road. We've been informally referring to > > this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. > > > > We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the landscape and > > taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those on this > > working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if our views > > are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to accellerate the > > development of this group's deliverables. > > > > Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting whenever > > the agenda permits. > > > > Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: > > CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have > > recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web Services, > > A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges facing the > > IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and strategy for > > the evolution of management systems to support emerging business > > environments. It explains how a common approach for manageability (using > > Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management solutions for > > both existing systems and systems based upon emerging Service-Oriented > > Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based > > systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and unifies > > several popular management models and technologies in a way to manage any > > IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. > > > > We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the > > foundation standards for this Roadmap. > > > > You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: > > HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp > > IBM: > > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-m roadmap/ > > > > CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 > > > > Thank you, > > Heather Kreger > > STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards > > kreger at us.ibm.com > > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050624/2ff47513/attachment.htm From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Fri Jun 24 02:08:07 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:08:07 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion In-Reply-To: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> References: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <42BBB157.7090903@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi Dave, Yes, we already have a public web site and public mailing list. However we won't announce (or keep blank) until next week. I will let you know next week, please stay tuned. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Dave Sidor wrote: > Hiro, > > Now that the SCRM WG is an official GGF WG, I assume it has its own (and > new) mailing list, web/ftp site, and possibly GGF-related procedures to > follow. If so, can you point us to the related information? > > Thanks > > Dave > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >>Thanks Heather for this pointer. >> >>Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level >>requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also >>make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for public >>comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing >>Domain. >> >>http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 >> >>If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it is >>good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG session >>at GGF14. >> >>Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this >>session? >> >>Thanks, >>---- >>Hiro Kishimoto >> >>Heather Kreger wrote: >> >>>Hello all, >>> >>>I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape and >>>taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those >>>discussions going forward. >>> >>>IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that expresses > > our > >>>view on the value of using Web services as a management platform to the >>>industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some > > existing > >>>standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work on our >>>radar a little further down the road. We've been informally referring to >>>this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. >>> >>>We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the landscape > > and > >>>taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those on this >>>working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if our > > views > >>>are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to accellerate > > the > >>>development of this group's deliverables. >>> >>>Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting > > whenever > >>>the agenda permits. >>> >>>Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: >>>CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have >>>recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web > > Services, > >>>A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges facing the >>>IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and strategy for >>>the evolution of management systems to support emerging business >>>environments. It explains how a common approach for manageability > > (using > >>>Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management solutions for >>>both existing systems and systems based upon emerging Service-Oriented >>>Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based >>>systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and unifies >>>several popular management models and technologies in a way to manage > > any > >>>IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. >>> >>>We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the >>> foundation standards for this Roadmap. >>> >>>You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: >>>HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp >>>IBM: >>> > > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-m > roadmap/ > >>>CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 >>> >>>Thank you, >>>Heather Kreger >>>STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards >>>kreger at us.ibm.com >>>919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >>> > > From replogle at ggf.org Fri Jun 24 09:07:04 2005 From: replogle at ggf.org (Joel Replogle) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:07:04 -0500 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion In-Reply-To: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> References: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> Message-ID: <0fbd1e0630b6e90497937f1b7b48d337@ggf.org> Dave et al, The SCRM-WG email list and gridforge project are in the process of being set up. They are both on my plate which has been consumed with the GGF14 session scheduling up to this point. I expect them to be set up in the next day or so (but prior to GGF14's start). Once in place, they will be "scrm-wg at ggf.org", and a gridforge project named "scrm-wg". On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Dave Sidor wrote: > Hiro, > > Now that the SCRM WG is an official GGF WG, I assume it has its own > (and > new) mailing list, web/ftp site, and possibly GGF-related procedures to > follow. If so, can you point us to the related information? > > Thanks > > Dave > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > Thanks Heather for this pointer. > > > > Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level > > requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also > > make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for > public > > comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing > > Domain. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 > > > > If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it > is > > good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG > session > > at GGF14. > > > > Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this > > session? > > > > Thanks, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > Heather Kreger wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape > and > > > taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those > > > discussions going forward. > > > > > > IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that > expresses our > > > view on the value of using Web services as a management platform > to the > > > industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some > existing > > > standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work > on our > > > radar a little further down the road. We've been informally > referring to > > > this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. > > > > > > We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the > landscape and > > > taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those > on this > > > working group.? We'd also being very interested in discussing if > our views > > > are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to > accellerate the > > > development of this group's deliverables. > > > > > > Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting > whenever > > > the agenda permits. > > > > > > Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: > > > CA, HP and IBM would like to make you? aware of a paper that we > have > > > recently published jointly.? This paper,? 'Management Using Web > Services, > > > A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges > facing the > > > IT systems? management community and defines a roadmap and > strategy for > > > the evolution of? management systems to support emerging business > > > environments. It explains how a? common approach for manageability > (using > > > Web services infrastructure) can? simplify the management > solutions for > > > both existing systems and systems based? upon emerging > Service-Oriented > > > Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive? Web services based > > > systems management architecture that supports, integrates,? and > unifies > > > several popular management models and technologies in a way to? > manage any > > > IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. > > > > > > We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of > the > > >? foundation standards for this Roadmap. > > > > > > You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: > > > HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp > > > IBM: > > > > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ > specification/ws-mroadmap/ > > > > > > CA: > http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Heather Kreger > > > STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards > > > kreger at us.ibm.com > > > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)? cell:919-496-9572 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Joel Replogle Standards Facilitator Global Grid Forum replogle at ggf.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6086 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050624/a20c7dc6/attachment.bin From djsidor at nortel.com Fri Jun 24 12:34:48 2005 From: djsidor at nortel.com (Dave Sidor) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:34:48 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion Message-ID: <42BC4438.5B622CC6@americasm01.nt.com> Hiro, Joe, Thanks for the info. There is no rush; I just wanted to know where we stand. Dave Joel Replogle wrote: > > Dave et al, > The SCRM-WG email list and gridforge project are in the process of being set up. They are both on my plate which has been consumed with the GGF14 session scheduling up to this point. I expect them to be set up in the next day or so (but prior to GGF14's start). > > Once in place, they will be "scrm-wg at ggf.org", and a gridforge project named "scrm-wg". > On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Dave Sidor wrote: > > Hiro, > > Now that the SCRM WG is an official GGF WG, I assume it has its own (and > new) mailing list, web/ftp site, and possibly GGF-related procedures to > follow. If so, can you point us to the related information? > > Thanks > > Dave > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > > > Thanks Heather for this pointer. > > > > Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level > > requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also > > make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for public > > comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing > > Domain. > > > > http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 > > > > If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it is > > good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG session > > at GGF14. > > > > Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this > > session? > > > > Thanks, > > ---- > > Hiro Kishimoto > > > > Heather Kreger wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the landscape and > > > taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those > > > discussions going forward. > > > > > > IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that expresses our > > > view on the value of using Web services as a management platform to the > > > industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some existing > > > standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work on our > > > radar a little further down the road. We've been informally referring to > > > this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. > > > > > > We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the landscape and > > > taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those on this > > > working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if our views > > > are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to accellerate the > > > development of this group's deliverables. > > > > > > Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting whenever > > > the agenda permits. > > > > > > Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: > > > CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have > > > recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web Services, > > > A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges facing the > > > IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and strategy for > > > the evolution of management systems to support emerging business > > > environments. It explains how a common approach for manageability (using > > > Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management solutions for > > > both existing systems and systems based upon emerging Service-Oriented > > > Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based > > > systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and unifies > > > several popular management models and technologies in a way to manage any > > > IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. > > > > > > We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the > > > foundation standards for this Roadmap. > > > > > > You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: > > > HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp > > > IBM: > > > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-m roadmap/ > > > > > > CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Heather Kreger > > > STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards > > > kreger at us.ibm.com > > > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- > Joel Replogle > Standards Facilitator > Global Grid Forum > replogle at ggf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050624/bdc9ebcc/attachment.htm From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Fri Jun 24 16:23:12 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 06:23:12 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Management Roadmap for SCRM discussion In-Reply-To: <0fbd1e0630b6e90497937f1b7b48d337@ggf.org> References: <42BB9BE7.F39C4BFD@americasm01.nt.com> <0fbd1e0630b6e90497937f1b7b48d337@ggf.org> Message-ID: <42BC79C0.6070404@jp.fujitsu.com> Thanks Joel, Since your predecessor, Stacey, has set up the GridForge project, we already have a "blank" SCRM project page. Although, it should remain "under construction" until next Monday (June 27). project page: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/scrm/ Given that (1) SCRM-WG charter says it is "scrm-wg" instead of "scrm" and (2) "*-wg" is GridForge's naming convention, feel free to replace "/projects/scrm" to "/projects/scrm-wg" if you like. On the other hand, Stacey has NOT created mailing list for SCRM-WG. Please set up a new mailing list. Maintainers of this list should be WG co-chairs. Jay Unger: unger at us.ibm.com Mark Carlson: Mark.Carlson at Sun.COM Also please pre-register all scrm-private members in this new mailing list. Thanks again and see you in Chicago very soon. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Joel Replogle wrote: > Dave et al, > The SCRM-WG email list and gridforge project are in the process of > being set up. They are both on my plate which has been consumed with > the GGF14 session scheduling up to this point. I expect them to be set > up in the next day or so (but prior to GGF14's start). > > Once in place, they will be "scrm-wg at ggf.org", and a gridforge > project named "scrm-wg". > On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Dave Sidor wrote: > >> Hiro, >> >> Now that the SCRM WG is an official GGF WG, I assume it has its own (and >> new) mailing list, web/ftp site, and possibly GGF-related procedures to >> follow. If so, can you point us to the related information? >> >> Thanks >> >> Dave >> >> Hiro Kishimoto wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Heather for this pointer. >> > >> > Yes, I think it is very relevant to SCRM activity. It is a high level >> > requirement document for System Management Domain. GGF OGSA-WG also >> > make final call for "OGSA roadmap document v1.0" submission for public >> > comment by GGF at large. This roadmap document is for Grid Computing >> > Domain. >> > >> > http://tinyurl.com/9ssa9 >> > >> > If SCRM-WG co-chairs, Jay Unger and Mark Carlson, agree, I think it is >> > good idea to introduce these two documents at upcoming SCRM-WG session >> > at GGF14. >> > >> > Is there any other relevant documents we should bring in at this >> > session? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > ---- >> > Hiro Kishimoto >> > >> > Heather Kreger wrote: >> > > Hello all, >> > > >> > > I know that conversations are underway in earnest on the >> landscape and >> > > taxonomy papers and I am looking forward to being involved in those >> > > discussions going forward. >> > > >> > > IBM has recently published a white paper with HP and CA that >> expresses our >> > > view on the value of using Web services as a management platform >> to the >> > > industry, the major, foundational architectural roles, where some >> existing >> > > standards and specifications fit into those roles, and some work >> on our >> > > radar a little further down the road. We've been informally >> referring to >> > > this paper as the 'Management Roadmap'. >> > > >> > > We think this paper is of similar scope and direction of the >> landscape and >> > > taxonomy papers. We are very interested in the opinions of those >> on this >> > > working group. We'd also being very interested in discussing if >> our views >> > > are similar to your own and if this paper could be used to >> accellerate the >> > > development of this group's deliverables. >> > > >> > > Hiro, I'd be happy to have this paper discussed on a call/meeting >> whenever >> > > the agenda permits. >> > > >> > > Here's the post we made to OGSA, WSDM, and DMTF WS-CIM: >> > > CA, HP and IBM would like to make you aware of a paper that we have >> > > recently published jointly. This paper, 'Management Using Web >> Services, >> > > A Proposed Architecture and Roadmap' characterizes challenges >> facing the >> > > IT systems management community and defines a roadmap and >> strategy for >> > > the evolution of management systems to support emerging business >> > > environments. It explains how a common approach for >> manageability (using >> > > Web services infrastructure) can simplify the management >> solutions for >> > > both existing systems and systems based upon emerging >> Service-Oriented >> > > Architectures (SOA). It defines a comprehensive Web services based >> > > systems management architecture that supports, integrates, and >> unifies >> > > several popular management models and technologies in a way to >> manage any >> > > IT resource in a platform and language-neutral manner. >> > > >> > > We believe that CIM, WSDM, WSRF, and WS-Notification are some of the >> > > foundation standards for this Roadmap. >> > > >> > > You can get a copy of the management roadmap at one of this links: >> > > HP: http://devresource.hp.com/drc/resources/muwsarch/index.jsp >> > > IBM: >> > > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ >> specification/ws-mroadmap/ >> > > >> > > CA: http://www3.ca.com/technologies/Collateral.asp?CID=70104&ID=3339 >> > > >> > > Thank you, >> > > Heather Kreger >> > > STSM, Web Services and Management Architect for SWG Standards >> > > kreger at us.ibm.com >> > > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------- > Joel Replogle > Standards Facilitator > Global Grid Forum > replogle at ggf.org > From unger at us.ibm.com Fri Jun 24 21:56:37 2005 From: unger at us.ibm.com (Jay Unger) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:56:37 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 Message-ID: Everyone, Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the SCRM-WG informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in Chicago. This meeting is intended to be primarily an informational and announcement meeting to inform the GGF attendees about the working group. I do not expect any substantive technical activity, discussions or questions [however one never should predict this]. The proposed agenda is in two main parts. We will begin with a short overview presentation about the history, objectives, plans and directions of the working group delivered by myself and Hiro Kishimoto. The remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel discussion". I am asking some of the people from other participating SDOs who have stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of the group and then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the audience. If I have left out anyone who would like to join the panel, or included anyone who cannot [or does not want to] participate please let me know and I will make appropriate adjustments. I expect a good deal of the press that attends GGF will be at this meeting and may have questions about the plans and objectives. Also if I have ommited anything that anybody thinks is critical to the sucess of the working group don't hesitate to point that out and I will glady alter the agenda. Jay Unger (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050624/c2faa340/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050624/c2faa340/attachment.doc From brc at zurich.ibm.com Sat Jun 25 09:59:09 2005 From: brc at zurich.ibm.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:59:09 +0200 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42BD713D.7090400@zurich.ibm.com> Jay, Could you delete the word "participating" in both places where it appears in the draft agenda? At least so far, the IETF isn't participating as such, as Bert has indicated. We're watching... Brian Jay Unger wrote: > > > > > Everyone, > > Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the SCRM-WG > informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in Chicago. This > meeting is intended to be primarily an informational and announcement > meeting to inform the GGF attendees about the working group. I do not > expect any substantive technical activity, discussions or questions > [however one never should predict this]. The proposed agenda is in two main > parts. We will begin with a short overview presentation about the history, > objectives, plans and directions of the working group delivered by myself > and Hiro Kishimoto. The remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel > discussion". I am asking some of the people from other participating SDOs > who have stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements > encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of the group and > then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the audience. If > I have left out anyone who would like to join the panel, or included anyone > who cannot [or does not want to] participate please let me know and I will > make appropriate adjustments. I expect a good deal of the press that > attends GGF will be at this meeting and may have questions about the plans > and objectives. Also if I have ommited anything that anybody thinks is > critical to the sucess of the working group don't hesitate to point that > out and I will glady alter the agenda. > > Jay Unger > > (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) From unger at us.ibm.com Sat Jun 25 10:33:54 2005 From: unger at us.ibm.com (Jay Unger) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:33:54 -0400 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 In-Reply-To: <42BD713D.7090400@zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: Brian, No problem. I have elimnated "participating" in the title of the section and changed it to "interested" in the next sentence. Jay (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda Revision0625.doc) Brian E Carpenter To Sent by: Jay Unger/Gaithersburg/IBM at IBMUS owner-scrm-privat cc e at ggf.org scrm-private at ggf.org Subject Re: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for 06/25/2005 10:59 SCRM Meeting at GGF14 AM Jay, Could you delete the word "participating" in both places where it appears in the draft agenda? At least so far, the IETF isn't participating as such, as Bert has indicated. We're watching... Brian Jay Unger wrote: > > > > > Everyone, > > Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the SCRM-WG > informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in Chicago. This > meeting is intended to be primarily an informational and announcement > meeting to inform the GGF attendees about the working group. I do not > expect any substantive technical activity, discussions or questions > [however one never should predict this]. The proposed agenda is in two main > parts. We will begin with a short overview presentation about the history, > objectives, plans and directions of the working group delivered by myself > and Hiro Kishimoto. The remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel > discussion". I am asking some of the people from other participating SDOs > who have stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements > encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of the group and > then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the audience. If > I have left out anyone who would like to join the panel, or included anyone > who cannot [or does not want to] participate please let me know and I will > make appropriate adjustments. I expect a good deal of the press that > attends GGF will be at this meeting and may have questions about the plans > and objectives. Also if I have ommited anything that anybody thinks is > critical to the sucess of the working group don't hesitate to point that > out and I will glady alter the agenda. > > Jay Unger > > (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/864ff6a4/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graycol.gif Type: image/gif Size: 105 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/864ff6a4/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic28258.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1255 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/864ff6a4/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ecblank.gif Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/864ff6a4/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF14 SCRM Agenda Revision0625.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/864ff6a4/attachment.doc From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Sat Jun 25 16:05:40 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 06:05:40 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42BDC724.40906@jp.fujitsu.com> Thanks Jay for your proposed agenda, Yesterday, I met Mark Carlson, another SCRM-WG co-chair, in Tokyo :-) As you may know, SNIA's board meeting will be held in Tokyo next week, thus Mark and the other SNIA leaderships cannot make GGF14. He said he is very happy about WG's successful launch and asked me to convey his apology to you all. Jay: Your agenda looks good to me. But I don't think Winston comes this time. I also make some minor edits to your draft (including Brian's). Feel free to accept or reject them. (see attached file) I propose that expected session attendees to meet Tuesday morning before GGF14 opening plenary (it starts at 9am) at GGF14 continental breakfast room (if you want have real breakfast we will meet at hotel's restaurant instead) for information exchange and final adjustment of session proceeding. Does 8-8:45am Tuesday work for you? Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Jay Unger wrote: > > > > > Everyone, > > Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the SCRM-WG > informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in Chicago. This > meeting is intended to be primarily an informational and announcement > meeting to inform the GGF attendees about the working group. I do not > expect any substantive technical activity, discussions or questions > [however one never should predict this]. The proposed agenda is in two main > parts. We will begin with a short overview presentation about the history, > objectives, plans and directions of the working group delivered by myself > and Hiro Kishimoto. The remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel > discussion". I am asking some of the people from other participating SDOs > who have stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements > encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of the group and > then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the audience. If > I have left out anyone who would like to join the panel, or included anyone > who cannot [or does not want to] participate please let me know and I will > make appropriate adjustments. I expect a good deal of the press that > attends GGF will be at this meeting and may have questions about the plans > and objectives. Also if I have ommited anything that anybody thinks is > critical to the sucess of the working group don't hesitate to point that > out and I will glady alter the agenda. > > Jay Unger > > (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF14 SCRM Agenda-hiro.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050626/f1f6206c/attachment.doc From kreger at us.ibm.com Sat Jun 25 21:26:58 2005 From: kreger at us.ibm.com (Heather Kreger) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:26:58 -0600 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jay, The Management Roadmap was authored by IBM, HP AND CA. Thanks for correcting this. Do we know if Jamie Clark is attending? He'd be better to represent OASIS, but I'd be happy to fill in if its ok with him. Heather Kreger STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems" kreger at us.ibm.com 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 Jay Unger/Gaithersburg/IBM at IBMUS Sent by: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org 06/24/2005 10:56 PM To scrm-private at ggf.org cc Subject [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 Everyone, Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the SCRM-WG informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in Chicago. This meeting is intended to be primarily an informational and announcement meeting to inform the GGF attendees about the working group. I do not expect any substantive technical activity, discussions or questions [however one never should predict this]. The proposed agenda is in two main parts. We will begin with a short overview presentation about the history, objectives, plans and directions of the working group delivered by myself and Hiro Kishimoto. The remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel discussion". I am asking some of the people from other participating SDOs who have stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of the group and then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the audience. If I have left out anyone who would like to join the panel, or included anyone who cannot [or does not want to] participate please let me know and I will make appropriate adjustments. I expect a good deal of the press that attends GGF will be at this meeting and may have questions about the plans and objectives. Also if I have ommited anything that anybody thinks is critical to the sucess of the working group don't hesitate to point that out and I will glady alter the agenda. Jay Unger (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/6b230537/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 23040 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/scrm-private/attachments/20050625/6b230537/attachment.obj From andreaw at cisco.com Sun Jun 26 23:35:11 2005 From: andreaw at cisco.com (Andrea Westerinen (andreaw)) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:35:11 -0700 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 Message-ID: Either continental or real breakfast is fine for me. My concern is that a "real" breakfast could take longer than 45 mins. Andrea > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org > [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:06 PM > To: Jay Unger > Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org > Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 > > Thanks Jay for your proposed agenda, > > Yesterday, I met Mark Carlson, another SCRM-WG co-chair, in > Tokyo :-) As you may know, SNIA's board meeting will be held > in Tokyo next week, thus Mark and the other SNIA leaderships > cannot make GGF14. He said he is very happy about WG's > successful launch and asked me to convey his apology to you all. > > Jay: Your agenda looks good to me. But I don't think Winston > comes this time. I also make some minor edits to your draft > (including Brian's). Feel free to accept or reject them. (see > attached file) > > I propose that expected session attendees to meet Tuesday > morning before > GGF14 opening plenary (it starts at 9am) at GGF14 continental > breakfast room (if you want have real breakfast we will meet > at hotel's restaurant instead) for information exchange and > final adjustment of session proceeding. Does 8-8:45am Tuesday > work for you? > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Jay Unger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Everyone, > > > > Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the > > SCRM-WG informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in > > Chicago. This meeting is intended to be primarily an informational > > and announcement meeting to inform the GGF attendees about > the working > > group. I do not expect any substantive technical activity, > discussions > > or questions [however one never should predict this]. The proposed > > agenda is in two main parts. We will begin with a short overview > > presentation about the history, objectives, plans and directions of > > the working group delivered by myself and Hiro Kishimoto. The > > remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel discussion". I am > > asking some of the people from other participating SDOs who have > > stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements > > encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of > the group > > and then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the > > audience. If I have left out anyone who would like to join > the panel, > > or included anyone who cannot [or does not want to] > participate please > > let me know and I will make appropriate adjustments. I > expect a good > > deal of the press that attends GGF will be at this meeting and may > > have questions about the plans and objectives. Also if I > have ommited > > anything that anybody thinks is critical to the sucess of > the working group don't hesitate to point that out and I will > glady alter the agenda. > > > > Jay Unger > > > > (See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) > > > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 27 10:41:12 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:41:12 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42C01E18.2020800@jp.fujitsu.com> Thanks Andrea, Then, let's meet at the breakfast hall and break out to nearby room for chat. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) wrote: > Either continental or real breakfast is fine for me. My concern is that > a "real" breakfast could take longer than 45 mins. > > Andrea > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org >>[mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto >>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:06 PM >>To: Jay Unger >>Cc: scrm-private at ggf.org >>Subject: Re: [scrm-pvt] Draft Agenda for SCRM Meeting at GGF14 >> >>Thanks Jay for your proposed agenda, >> >>Yesterday, I met Mark Carlson, another SCRM-WG co-chair, in >>Tokyo :-) As you may know, SNIA's board meeting will be held >>in Tokyo next week, thus Mark and the other SNIA leaderships >>cannot make GGF14. He said he is very happy about WG's >>successful launch and asked me to convey his apology to you all. >> >>Jay: Your agenda looks good to me. But I don't think Winston >>comes this time. I also make some minor edits to your draft >>(including Brian's). Feel free to accept or reject them. (see >>attached file) >> >>I propose that expected session attendees to meet Tuesday >>morning before >>GGF14 opening plenary (it starts at 9am) at GGF14 continental >>breakfast room (if you want have real breakfast we will meet >>at hotel's restaurant instead) for information exchange and >>final adjustment of session proceeding. Does 8-8:45am Tuesday >>work for you? >> >>Thanks, >>---- >>Hiro Kishimoto >> >>Jay Unger wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>Everyone, >>> >>>Attached is a Word document describing the proposed agenda for the >>>SCRM-WG informational meeting at GGF14 on Wednesday June 29th in >>>Chicago. This meeting is intended to be primarily an informational >>>and announcement meeting to inform the GGF attendees about >> >>the working >> >>>group. I do not expect any substantive technical activity, >> >>discussions >> >>>or questions [however one never should predict this]. The proposed >>>agenda is in two main parts. We will begin with a short overview >>>presentation about the history, objectives, plans and directions of >>>the working group delivered by myself and Hiro Kishimoto. The >>>remainder of the meeting will be a sort of "panel discussion". I am >>>asking some of the people from other participating SDOs who have >>>stated they are planning to attend to make brief statements >>>encouraging participation and reinforcing the objectives of >> >>the group >> >>>and then to join in discussion and in fielding questions from the >>>audience. If I have left out anyone who would like to join >> >>the panel, >> >>>or included anyone who cannot [or does not want to] >> >>participate please >> >>>let me know and I will make appropriate adjustments. I >> >>expect a good >> >>>deal of the press that attends GGF will be at this meeting and may >>>have questions about the plans and objectives. Also if I >> >>have ommited >> >>>anything that anybody thinks is critical to the sucess of >> >>the working group don't hesitate to point that out and I will >>glady alter the agenda. >> >>>Jay Unger >>> >>>(See attached file: GGF14 SCRM Agenda.doc) >> >> >> >> > > From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com Mon Jun 27 11:03:48 2005 From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 01:03:48 +0900 Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM news release has been issued In-Reply-To: <42B18C5C.3090908@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <42AEB3F8.4000902@jp.fujitsu.com> <42B0E2E5.1080902@jp.fujitsu.com> <42B18C5C.3090908@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: <42C02364.7030301@jp.fujitsu.com> Hi all, SCRM news release has been successfully issued this morning. It is also uploaded at GGF web site. http://www.ggf.org/ggf_rotate_SDO.htm Thank you very much for your cooperation. Following this press release we will have our first WG session on this Wednesday. I am sure we will win success again. Regards, ---- Hiro Kishimoto