April 2009 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

URN urn:ogf:network
by Freek Dijkstra 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Hi, Recently, I have seen a few uses of the namespace prefix urn:ogf:network. While I think a common namespace is a good idea, I just like to emphasis that this is not an official namespace. Or not yet. URN allocated by IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/ "urn:" is a formal namespace, and registration requires IETF consensus action. Currently, urn:ogf is not even registered, so urn:ogf: or urn:ogf:network must not be used. As I see it, we have two options: 1. Use urn:ogf:network. This first requires IETF consensus action to allocate urn:ogf to the OGF (it is not yet!), then OGF consensus action to allocation urn:ogf:network to the NML-WG. 2. Use the URI ogf.org/network as namespace. This is what is done in RDF (in RDF, http://ogf.org/network would be used, even though the HTTP protocol is not involved in any way) and does not require a standardization action. Given the status of the OGF, I have a very slight preference for the first option. However, I don't know how much more work this means. I am not present at the current OGF, but I would be interested to hear others opinions -- either those in the workgroup and the OGF at large (since option 1 requires OGF action). Note: Ronald van der Pol et al. recently created a document "Global Lightpath Identifiers Proposal", http://www.glif.is/list-archives/all/msg00062.html which discuss a similar naming problem in the GLIF organization. It is a short read and gives some insight into the available options for namespaces (even though it discusses a whole different type of identifiers). Regards, Freek

7 13

Comments on draft OGF protocol description requested
by Ralph Niederberger 22 Apr '09

22 Apr '09

Dear all, my name is Ralph Niederberger. I am one of the chairs of the FVGA-WG at OGF. We are currently investigating in designing a new protocol for dynamic opening of ports within firewalls by authorized user applications. Sorry for crossposting to all of the infrastructure-area mailing lists, but I would like to get feedback from all of you concerning a draft protocol we are just preparing within our group. And because our area-directors did not provide me with information on an infrastructure-area mailing list, where I could send it once, I had to send it to all RG/WGs The draft description I have appended to this email. It would be very helpful, if you could comment on this proposal, so that the Firewall Virtualisation for Grid Applications - Work Group can work on your comments at the next OGF meeting. We know that there are many other developments, which already have tried to solve this issue, but have not seen any solution, which is widely used and/or provides a similar easy to use interface and broad range of usability. Our intention is to get as much as possible feedback, so that we can decide as soon as possible, if the direction we are going is the right one or if we have missed anything important. Dependent on your feedback, we would like to go for this solution or change the draft accordingly. Then we would like to start the following steps in parallel: a.) Getting in touch with IETF for standardization issues. b.) Implementation of a first very limited prototype (showing that it works as suggested). Step b could be separated into different parts: b1.) prototype implementation for linux iptables b2.) prototype in close cooperation with a Firewall developer (-> a first FiTP aware firewall). Anyone having contact to these guys would be fine. b3.) Communication prototypes for out of band signalling, i.e. for firewalls which are FiTP unaware. So the auth server has to start a subroutine for firewall configuration (via CLI, special firewall managament software, https, ...) b3 could be done for several firewall systems, e.g. Cisco Pix, Checkpoint, ... Here we would need experts having access to those kinds of firewalls within test environments. Next steps are very dependent on the outcome of steps a.) and b.) above. I would like to thank you all in advance for your feedback. best regards Ralph Niederberger -- *************************************************** Ralph Niederberger Juelich Supercomputing Centre Institute for Advanced Simulation Phone: +49 2461 61-4772 Fax: +49 2461 61-6656 E-Mail: r.niederberger(a)fz-juelich.de WWW: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/ JSC is the coordinator of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing and member of the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing *************************************************** Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH 52425 Jülich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ***************************************************

1 0

OGF 26 timeslots
by Freek Dijkstra 06 Apr '09

06 Apr '09

Hi, The next OGF will be in six weeks from now, and we should have a first draft ready by than. We are going to ask for two sessions, with roughly one slot for presentations and one slot for discussions about the draft. * Please let us know if you like to give a presentation (we at least expect a short presentation from the NSI folks) * Please let us know if there are specific groups/areas to avoid schedule conflicts (I'm going to mark NSI, GHPN, NMC) * Do we need a polycom We're going to request the sessions tomorrow, so if reply shortly if you have any plans for a presentation or have time/scheduling constraints. Regards, Freek Dijkstra and Martin Swany.

1 0