Conference azur::mcc

    First point - DECnet/OSI uses CMIP at the DS1 level currently for
    all its management. DS1 level is the level of CMIP 3 years ago.
    
    Second point - EMA is based upon CMIS functionality at the DS1 level
    of 3 years ago.
    
    DECmcc already supports the DS1 level CMIP and CMIS and has since
    V1.0.
    
    DECmcc has a prototype OSI AM in field evaluation and is awaiting
    standardization of OSI objects for productization.
    
    DECmcc will be releasing a fully OSI compliant management system
    in CY92. If you need further details of functionality, etc. contact
    TAEC::FLAUW. The project/product name is TNMP. It is being done
    in Valbonne.
    
    DECnet Phase VI will migrate all DECnet products from DS1 CMIP to
    IS CMIP.
    
    So DEC already has CMIP in its pre-standardization form integrated
    into all of our products and are working feverishly on migrating
    to the recently standardized version of CMIS/CMIP.
    
    wally

>   DECnet Phase VI will migrate all DECnet products from DS1 CMIP to
>   IS CMIP.
>
>   So DEC already has CMIP in its pre-standardization form integrated
>   into all of our products and are working feverishly on migrating
>   to the recently standardized version of CMIS/CMIP.

Much as I'd like to see this happen, there has not been, to my knowledge,
any statement of what will be in DECnet Phase VI (whatever that might 
be). 

		frank (DECnet Phase V architect)

    I was pretty staggered by the mention of "Decnet Phase VI" too! I, and
    several hundred others, are still holding our breath that we might some
    time soon get to ship Phase V on the major platforms.  I think we'd all
    agree, all several hundred of us, that we NEVER but NEVER want anything
    that involves so much change and complexity as Phase V all at once EVER
    again.  "Decnet Phase VI" has, at the moment, as much meaning as
    "Decnet Phase MCMXCII".
    
    The original idea of the Phases had to do with backward compatibility.
    A system of "Phase n" would always work with systems of Phases n-1 and
    n+1.  The suite of protocols supported has now got a lot more
    complicated but also more stable: neither OSI nor TCP/IP is likely to
    undergo the same kind of relatively quick development that
    characterized Decnet Phases I-IV.
    
    Bearing in mind that even Phase V isn't actually called that
    officially, the only reason to declare "Phase VI" would be so that we
    could stop supporting compatibility with Phase IV.  Somehow I think
    it will be a while before the marketplace will let us try that!
    
    Future development of the Decnet product family will take the form of a
    series of incremental enhancements, just as with any other product
    family.
    
    Now, as to the base question (and bearing in mind who the customer is),
    I would say the answer is "yes, absolutely, we're dead committed to
    including full OSI management in our products".  To the obvious next
    question, "when?", I'd suggest something like "Goodness me, is that
    the time, must dash or I'll miss my plane".  Seriously, the true answer
    is that in a sense everyone is geared up to do it "some time soon", but
    I'm not aware of concrete plans to add it as a full product capability
    to either the directors or the network components themselves simply
    because it's not clear what the market demand is.  My guess, and I'd
    stress that it is very simply my personal guess, is that full OSI
    management will start to appear in our products 18-30 months from now.
    
    The standards for OSI management are coming along nicely, but they're
    not quite there yet.  The protocol itself (CMIP) is only a small part
    of the story.  The Information Model, the equivalent of our EMA, has
    also recently become an International Standard.  The next step is the
    managed objects themselves, the equivalent of our entities.  The first
    ones of these, for the OSI network and transport layers, are current
    Draft International Standard and will become IS (all being well) this
    summer, with others following reasonably rapidly (by the norms of OSI
    standardization).  Thus *in principle* it would be possible to have
    an OSI management capability of some, rather limited, use maybe a year
    from now.  However, the utility depends rather on how many people
    include it in their products, giving the well-known chicken-and-egg
    situation that we have already experienced with the basic OSI
    capabilities themselves.
    
    If (as I suspect) the customer is CCTA, statements of serious intent
    and reassurance will probably go down fairly well, especially since
    these people are pretty smart and are perfectly well able to calibrate
    the statements coming from other vendors as well.
    
    Incidentally something which would (I hope) add to our credentials is
    that DEC has put a lot of effort into getting these standards to move.
    The OSI Management Information Model is closely based on EMA, while the
    editors (i.e. the people who do most of the work) for the Network and
    Transport layer management standards are both DEC people.  (In fact,
    it's almost embarassing; the IBM standards types are distinctly uneasy
    about it).
    
    Hope this helps...
    
    	John
    
    

    sorry to have created such a fuss. John is perfectly correct. We have
    an often stated commitment to migrate objects to OSI CMIP rather than
    DEC CMIP (they aren't very far apart). No there is no official plan
    on when that will actually occur. 
    
    I did not intend to pre-announce phase VI (not the opposite asymetry to
    Phase IV). Some of us that have been in Phase V for the last 5 years
    have used Phase VI as a catch all for things that are committed for
    OSI but not actually in a current plan. In responding to your question
    I inadvertently used internal jargon for external communication.
    
    John's response is probably the closes you will get to the truth of
    the matter.
    
    From the Director side, it could happen fairly quickly. We actually
    have a prototype of the OSI CMIP AM working. We are evaluating it
    with at least one customer using test objects and some proprietary
    objects of their design. We are also doing preliminary demos via
    Network Management Forum Showcases. So it is technically feasible
    to support objects via OSI CMIP today. The real issue is when will
    the rest of the OSI community have objects that we can manage.
    
    wally

    Wally,

    this issue is close to me with a very large corporate account.  The
    customer has asked a specific question...

      When will Digital fully support the OSI CMIP for management on the
    DECmcc platform, and the follow on from this is when on a OSF/DME
    platform ?  

    The customer wants to integrate the Northern Telecom management system
    using CMIP (NT have given them a prototype CMIP agent to work with) to a
    Management system based on OSF/DME.

    Apparently the competition (HP) has given dates for this.  I would
    appreciate it if you can put me in touch with the people in the know
    for actual committed dates etc... if any

    Thanks, Amrit

    The good old OSF/DME fog again, eh?  First of all - I hope Wally, that
    notes like this help you justify productizing the CMIP AM - even if
    it's not as robust as you might like.  The marketing value of having
    it now - would help re-establish Digital as a leading company in netmgt. 
    There IS a market - small but growing, for CMIP.  If we don't have it,
    someone else will get the leading edge business - again.  Wally, maybe
    thru services you can offer the prototype - so we can at least bid
    these opportunities.  As far as the DME stuff - well bluntly, DME is in 
    a MESS.  MCC is not currently on the OSF platform (it's just coming out), 
    but it would be worth pointing out to your customer that Digital is moving
    quickly to OSF - and it's clear that as ULTRIX migrates there, so will
    MCC/ULTRIX.  I believe (and am sure I'll be quickly corrected if wrong)
    that MCC on OSF would use much of the DCE, such as the name service,
    time service, RPC, and threads.  This means that when OSF is supported,
    there will be a REAL WORKING MATURE BY 4+ RELEASES integrated manager.
    A framework that has applications that can be easily used by anyone that 
    wants to build on top of it.  HP has openview, but there is only fog 
    about how it will migrate to what ever DME eventually becomes.  I'm sure 
    HP will CALL their next release OPENview/OSF - but our EMA architecture 
    staff will be eating their hats if OSF really has everything integrated 
    quickly.  NOW - EMA must adopt a lot of new DME concepts as DME gels - so 
    MCC is NOT a DME platform either - but the point is that both HP and DEC 
    are moving that direction.  It's quite clear a growing segment of the
    market DESIRE DME, so incorporation of the pieces into MCC is critical
    to market acceptance.  At the end of the day however, I believe
    customers will buy product that solves the problem they are shopping
    for.
    
    Hope this helps....
    
    bill
    
    

Hello Bill, Wally,

To add to what said Amrit before :

 We are contacted by a Belgian Telecom Manufacturer : they are building a
  CMIP agent. Their name is TELINDUS.
   Note that they are building a CMIP agent after several discussion with
   DIGITAL that described the EMA, the fact that everybody is going standard,
   CMIP, ...

  So they decided to build a CMIP agent for their equipment.

  They contact now DIGITAL to know WHEN, on our side, we will be ready to test
  the integration between their CMIP agent and our CMIP AM (They are talking 
  about a OSI CMIP AM ).

   Of course, they also want to work with HP to see when they will be able to 
   make some interoperability test with HPOpenview using CMIP.


I believe we need some official statement (better than 'we are working on it')
in order for us, facing the customers, to explain what is our strategy with
this famous OSI CMIP AM, when a test version will be available, if we do
propose something for 'compatibility test' between our CMIP AM and CMIP agents.

There might not be a lot of those requests, but they will have a strong 
influence on DECmcc reputation towards standards.


Marc.

    I'm answering an RFP for the State of California and need a reference
    for ISO IS 9595 CMIS.  Do we support the standard and if so can someone
    point me to a document that might mention CMIS or ISO 9595.  All I can
    find is reference to CMIP.