October 2011 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

New OGF document "Firewall Traversal Protocol" in public comment
by Niederberger, Ralph 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

Dear all, The document " Firewall Traversal Protocol (FiTP)" has begun public comment on 2011-10-18. Description: Firewalls control traffic flows between internal and external communication partners. Mostly traffic from inside to outside is allowed, but traffic coming from outside must be explicitly configured. The rules which packets may traverse the firewall and which not are normally configured manually by firewall administrators. To speed up such kind of access list changes, it would be desirable to dynamically signal access requests and automatically change those access lists. Though some protocols are inspectable by firewalls already like FTP, SIP and H.323, a general protocol, which could be used for signaling dynamically required access rules, is not available until now. This paper proposes a standard protocol, which would allow such signaling in a secure manner. Firewalls which have installed a corresponding inspection module could be configured automatically, which would ease the configuration of such systems a lot. Please visit: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=381 and consider reading and providing feedback. A brief affirmation is very useful to demonstrate community input and support. More detailed analysis is also, of course, welcome. All documents in public comment are accessible here: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment Please also feel free to forward this email to further interested people, so that a maximum of feedback can be gained. 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 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ***************************************************

1 0

Fwd: SVN commit notifications for NML
by Jeroen van der Ham 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

Begin forwarded message: > From: Andre Merzky <andre(a)merzky.net> > Subject: Re: SVN commit notifications for NML > Date: 21 October 2011 12:59:50 CEST > To: Jeroen van der Ham <vdham(a)uva.nl> > Cc: Joel Replogle <replogle(a)ogf.org> > > Hi Jeroen, > > right now that feature is broken I'm afraid. We intent to switch > hosting in a couple of > weeks, and svn notification is one of the things we hope to get fixed > that way... > > Best, Andre. > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham(a)uva.nl> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Is it possible to get the OGF Gridforge SVN repository to send emails to the NML-WG mailinglist when there has been a commit? >> >> Thanks! >> Jeroen. > > > > -- > Nothing is ever easy...

1 0

Conference calls
by Jeroen van der Ham 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

Hello, I'd like to get started again with the NML conference calls. I'm proposing that we schedule one in two weeks on October 20th. We'll use the usual time and place: UTC 15:00 = 8:00 PDT = EDT 11:00 = 17:00 CEST. Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 Agenda: - Continue discussion on the examples that we created at OGF33 - Plan for NML Schema document - Status of issues on gridforge Jeroen.

2 3

XML Example
by Jeroen van der Ham 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

Hi, I looked through the XML examples again while trying to create the RDF (N3) versions of them, and I have a couple of comments and questions: - The current nmlbase.xml example has (de)adaptation services, but they don't seem to be related to anything. Is this on purpose? - The nml:name property has a "type=hostname" attribute now. I don't think we've defined this in NML yet, do we want to add a hostname property? - Similarly, the definition of the service has a type "broadcastSwitchingType", I'm not sure how to solve this. - Convention in RDF is to start classnames with a capital letter, and use CamelCase. Is it custom in XML to use lowercase? How do we solve this? - If we define "hasInboundPort" and "hasOutboundPort" for SwitchingServices, why not for Nodes too? - We have a problem with "/" in the current URNs, quoting from RFC2141[0] > 2.3.2 The other reserved characters > > RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular > purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and > precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore, > these characters are RESERVED for future developments. Namespace > developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but > rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character. This really is a problem, because for example a popular N3/RDF validator[1] throws parsing errors on these identifiers. Jeroen. [0]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2141 [1]: http://www.rdfabout.com/demo/validator/

1 0

NML terminology: Port vs Interface
by Freek Dijkstra 10 Oct '11

10 Oct '11

All, A few years ago the NML group agreed to describe an object equal to the G.800 "Forwarding Point", but name it "Port", after prior usage in the NM-WG. Recently, it was proposed to rename this object to "Interface", after some confusion over the term "Port" in two projects. To end this discussion, I ask everyone reading this mail to vote what they think is the best term. The options are: * Port * Interface * ForwardingPoint * LogicalPort * LogicalInterface * No discussion, but further discussion on this term This is a ranked ballot, so if you don't care about the name, but like this discussion to end, you can rank the first five options with high priority (rank 1), and the last option (further discussion) as rank 6. Please vote at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/vote.pl?id=E_74473334af26… The voting system has some easy-to-circumvent methods in place to prevent people voting multiple times. If you have problems voting, let me know. Thanks, Freek

7 9