The Open Group Conference April 2001 Forums Report q Introduction q Customer Council q Security & eCommerce q Enterprise Management q Directory Interoperability q Architecture q Quality of Service q RealTime & Embedded Systems q Mobile Management Forum q EMA Forum q Looking Forward
77
Embed
The Open Group Conference April 2001 Forums Reportarchive.opengroup.org/public/member/q201/friday_plenary.pdf · TOGAF evolution q2000: TOGAF - version 6 §New software architectural
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Open Group Conference April 2001Forums Report
q Introductionq Customer Councilq Security & eCommerceq Enterprise Managementq Directory Interoperabilityq Architectureq Quality of Serviceq RealTime & Embedded Systemsq Mobile Management Forumq EMA Forumq Looking Forward
Berlin, April 2001Forum Report
q Broad Participation§ 215 in Berlin§ >40 to date on the WEB
q Wireless Enabled Enterprise§ Practical demonstration§ Industry showcase§ Case studies§ Workshops
q Regular Forum Meetings
The Wireless-Enabled Enterprise ConferenceEvaluation
Graph shows the percentage of attendees ranking on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is highest markValue & Quality av. 3.9, Presenters Knowledge av. 4.2, Relevance to Organization av. 3.8N= 43 (43 responses from 120 delegates)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Value & Quality Presenters Knowledge Relevance to Organization
1 2 3 4 5
Comparison with Previous Conferences
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
San
Die
go -
Man
agem
ent
Lond
on -
Mob
ile
Aus
tin -
Dire
ctor
y
Was
hing
ton
-D
epen
dabi
lity
San
Jos
e -
eFlo
w
Ber
lin -
Wir
eles
sE
nter
pris
e
Value
Knowledge
Relevance
Graph showing the average scores Questions:Value and quality of the agenda and presentationsPresenters knowledge of their subjectRelevance to your organization
CustomerCouncil
Joint Customer/Supplier Councils Meetingq Attendance§ 20 Attendees§ 12 Customer Council§ 4 Supplier Council§ 4 Open Group Staff
q Suggestion to have more frequent joint sessions§ Requirements analysis§ Coordination§ …possibly every 3rd session or so§ …need longer meeting time if structured as working session
§ Refine§ Advocacy – Who is interested in pursuing further?§ Generalization – How does it address broader base?§ Sponsorship – Council support for further action?
§ Progress§ Open Group Forums§ Ad hoc Member Interest Groups§ Other appropriate venues (consortia, etc.)
§ Track§ Requirements-to-Solutions
Next Steps
q Establish template and guidelines for capturing requirements from all sources§ Table-top forms for capturing requirements at Plenary
Sessions§ Web accessible for easy access§ Simple posting and visibility mechanism
q Engage member participation between Member Conferences§ On-line discussions§ Focused Teleconferences
q Progress available set of requirements through Business Scenario workshops
Security & eCommerce
Forum
Security Forum
q Two documents§ A Manager’s Guide to Information Security§ Information Security Patterns
q Joint meeting with Architecture Forum§ Discussed alignment of documents§ Agreed to provide security patterns input to
TOGAFq Informative presentations
A Manager’s Guide to Information Security
q Determined Document Structure§ Audience – Business managers§ Size – 25-35 pages§ Style – Informative§ Chapters and structure
q Assigned Chapters
Information Security Patterns
q Document§ Determined document outline and audience§ Catalog candidates§ Determined pattern template§ Determined pattern process life cycle
q Reviewed Subject Descriptor Pattern
Plans through Austin Meeting
q A Manager’s Guide to Information Security§ Document content finalized§ Edited draft available§ Final Security Forum review at meeting§ Output: submission to Company Review
q Information Security Patterns§ Submit patterns and glossary§ Review content in teleconferences§ Draft document available before meeting§ May not be complete
§ Finalize existing pattern content at meeting§ Output: input to TOGAF ‘next’ by September§ Ongoing effort: goal to publish book of security patterns
EnterpriseManagement
Forum
Pegasus
q Primary focus on addressing technical issues§ Multiple providers for same class§ Non-blocking (asynchronous) mode§ Threading and Locking§ Protocol adapters§ Bulk transfer
q Implementation functionally completeby end of May
q Presentations at DMTF DevCon, NMS 2001
ARM 3.0
q Application Response Measurement§ Draft completed§ Formal review in progress§ Completed by mid-May§ Plan to build on the announcement
AIC 1.1
q Application Instrumentation and Contro§ New version of the standard nearing
completion§ Java interfaces§ Formal review in June§ Completed standard by next meeting
XSLM
q Software License Use Management§ Still on track for Issue 3 revision in July§ Hope to be able to announce formal review at
next meeting§ Next release after that will be a further 12
months
Austin Meeting
q Theme will be manageabilityq Strong speakers from user, vendor, analyst
communitiesq Sessions focusing on specific application
areasq Technology Day show-casing Enterprise
Management Forum projectsq “CIM 101” tutorial – modeling for users
DirectoryInteroperability
Forum
Meeting Structure
qWednesday – members only for DIF business
qThursday – open meeting for information dissemination
DIF Business
q New Vice Chair elected: Alexis Bor of Directory Works
q Plans laid to launch Works With LDAP 2000 on May 10 at N+I
q Directory in the Key Management Infrastructure Business Scenario:§ Directory Guidelines to be developed§ New scenario to be produced on Identity
Management, with particular reference to mobile aspects
DIF Business
q Further input on Standards Prioritizationreviewed – intention to finalize post Austin
q Need to develop overall picture of Directories and The Internet – and ensure that the standards needed are developed
q Next DirConnect: plugfest to advance Works With LDAP 2000
q Global Directory Forum planned for Paris
Information Dissemination
q The Value of Directory – DEN and service-provision application examples
q Certification for Directory Servers and Applications – The Open Brand for LDAP 2000 and Works With LDAP 2000
q Who’s Who§ Manager John Spencer§ Chair Chris Greenslade
Frietuna Computer Consultants (UK)
§ Vice Chairs Hugh FisherNational Health Service (UK)Barry SmithThe MITRE Corporation (USA)
Forum membership
q Membership - 19 Silver, 9 Gold, 2 Platinumq 14 participants at this meetingq 5 new to the forum
At this meeting
q TOGAFq Business scenariosq Patternsq TABBq TMF liaisonq Architect(ure) certification
CurrentCurrent
TOGAF evolutionq 2000: TOGAF - version 6§ New software architectural view§ Architectural views aligned with IEEE 1471§ Integration of other initiatives US DoD, IEEE 1003.23
q TOGAF guide§ bridge between executive overview and full documentation§ Phil Holmes to act as commissioning editor
TOGAF evolution
q 2001: TOGAF - version 7§ Position TOGAF relative to Zachman Framework
§ Architecture assessment - procedure and checklists § Deletion of outdated material§ Model based representations (TABB & METIS)§ Re-evaluation of TOGAF scope§ Business Scenarios - additional material and elevation
in document hierarchy
In progress
In progress
Patterns
q Presentation on Evolvable Systems though Architectural Patterns (ESAP)§ work being done at University of Reading§ uses both TOGAF and ADML
q Joint meeting on patterns with Security Forum§ Goals:§ Clarify terminology and concepts - e.g. pattern, building block,
view, etc.§ Identify points of leverage and synergy
§ Joint e-mail discussion forum
TABB
q IPR of Technical Architecture Builder and Browser (TABB) is with The Open Group
q Presentation and demonstration on TABB by developer -Chris Dobbyn
q TABB website availableq Future strategy§ TABB as an entry-level architecture tool§ Exploration of configuration management and constraint
capabilities
§ Support for ADML
TeleManagement Forum liaison
q Presentation by Tony Richardson - Director of Applied Architecture
q Developing New Generation Operations Systems and Software (NGOSS)
q Agreement to explore potential synergy
Architect(ure) certification
q Discussion and agreement to canvass inputq Progress by e-mail
Quality of ServiceTask Group
Open Session – Wednesday
q Live & Recorded Webcast
§ Relevant and Exciting QoS Experience
;^D§ http:/www.opengroup.org/~mgl/webcast
§ Great potential!
q Sessions 1,2,3 Speakers Discussing Current Industry Standards, Initiatives & Technologies forQoS
“Specification of Inter-Operator Interfaces to ensure end-to-end IP
QoS”
Eurescom P1008Participants:
BT, eircom, Telefónica, Telekom Austria, Telia
Denis McCarthy (eircom/Broadcom)
Open Service Creation in Premium IP Networks
Michael SmirnovGlobal Networking
GMD FOKUS
IST project CADENUS -CCreation aand DD eployment of EnEnd-UUser SServices
in Premium IP Networks
Quality of Service:The BIG Picture
Open Group Quality of Service Task Force Conference April 2001 - Berlin
Definition Phase - What Existsq Many Consortia working on Standards/Policy:
§ IETF, DMTF, CADENUS, OMG, MPLS
q After prioritizing members’ requirements identify and evaluate pertinent efforts in other consortia
q Populate Component Map with Existing standards efforts; interfaces protocols etc.
q White Paper for QoS Task Force
Evaluation Phase
q What is the Level of Applicability to Customers & Vendors Requirements?
§ What does the Standard/Policy achieve – how well does it fit?
q Level of Support & Market Adoption?§ Working Group (who’s involved)§ Specification (Draft/Standard/Revisions)§ Implementations (Prototype/Product)§ Evolution of Implementations§ Interoperability of Implementation
Decision Phase
q Given what is discovered in the Evaluation phase – Decide if most beneficial to:
§ Which existing standardization efforts should we support via gathering & driving requirements?§ Which consortia to have partner with and how closely to work
with? § Initiate efforts to increase market awareness and adoption of
QoS solutions?§ Initiate efforts to provide testing, interoperability, certification
for existing standards? § Initiate new efforts for QoS architecture, standards, policies?
q Publish Roadmap Q3
Implementation Phase – Q4
Based on Definition, Evaluation, Decision Phases
and According to Roadmap – To Be published in Q3
QoS Task Force Component Model – Starting Point
q Major Deliverable over past Quarter – Component Model§ Derived by Steering Committee over Past Quarter
q Objective for Component Model – Point of Reference§ Provide a reference for constituents involved in end-to-end
QoS.
§ Provide a reference of functional components and QoSarchitecture from system-wide level and further detailed at a unit level.
q Work in Progress - shaped and validated by Members
NOTE:
APP is Application
SLA is Service Level Agreement (Objectives)
U S E R-1 U
U S E R- N U
A P P-1 U
A P P- N U
Client Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
Client Network
& Computing Resources
Service Network & Computing Resources
Wide Area Network
Resources
U S E R- N S
A P P-1 S
A P P-2 S
U S E R-1 S
A P P- N S
...
...
...
...
CLIENT QoSSEGMENT
See speaker notes for more information
TOP LEVEL COMPONENT MAP FOR SINGLE AUTHORITY E2E SOLUTIONS
SERVICEQoS SEGMENT
WAN QoSSEGMENT
Wide Area Network
Resource Managers
Service Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
End to End
Resource Managers
End to End Resource Mgmt. SLAs
END TO END QoS ZONE
MGMT DATA MGMT DATA
NOTE:
APP is Application
SLA is Service Level Agreement (Objectives)
U S E R-1 U
U S E R- N U
A P P-1 U
A P P- N U
Client Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
Client Network
& Computing Resources
Client Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
Service Network & Computing Resources
Wide Area Network
Resources
Service Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
Wide Area Resource
Mgmt. SLAs
U S E R- N S
A P P-1 S
A P P-2 S
U S E R-1 S
A P P- N S
...
...
...
...
CLIENT QoSZONE
See speaker notes for more information
TOP LEVEL COMPONENT MAP FOR FEDERATED E2E SOLUTIONS
SERVICEQoS ZONE
WAN QoSZONES
PEERING PEERING
Wide Area Network
Resource
Managers
Service Network &
Comput ing
Resource Managers
MGMT DATA MGMT DATA
Active ControlPolicies
Decision Point
Control Meter
Resource Manager
Policies Measurements
actionidentifier measurement
Classifier
ActiveClassification
Rules
Active MeteringPolicies
Measure &ControlPolicies
Marker
tag
Active Policy Update
N-layers of senior policy-driven Resource ManagersMgmt Data
Exchange with other authoritativeQoS zones (e.g. other service providers)
Not all components shown are in every resource manager instance
SLA ADMIN
Network & Computing Resource Managers
Resource Mgmt. SLAs
Network &
Computing Resources
Traffic Flow
MID-LEVEL COMPONENT MAP
Provision Measurement
Provision Classification
PeeringPolicies Measurements
As policies move from more senior to junior resource managers they are more decomposed in terms a breadth of control within the zone.