Network Working Group Dimitris Zisiadis
Internet-Draft Spyros Kopsidas
Intended status: Experimental Track Matina Tsavli
Expires: February 15, 2011 Leandros Tassiulas
CERTH
Chrysostomos Tziouvaras
GRNET
Guillaume Cessieux
Xavier Jeannin
CNRS
August 23, 2010
The Network Trouble Ticket Data Model
draft-dzis-nwg-nttdm-04.txt
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 15, 2011.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully,
as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this
document.
Abstract
Handling multiple sets of network trouble tickets (TTs)
originating from different participants inter-connected network
environments poses a series of challenges for the involved
institutions, Grid is a good example of such multi-domain project.
Each of the participants follows different procedures for handling
trouble in its domain, according to the local technical and
linguistic profile. The TT systems of the participants collect,
represent and disseminate TT information in different formats.
As a result, management of the daily workload by a central Network
Operations Centre (NOC) is a challenge on its own. Normalization
of TTs to a common format for presentation and storing at the
central NOC is mandatory. In the present document we provide a
model for automating the collection and normalization of the TT
received by multiple networks forming the Grid. Each of the
participants is using its home TT system within its domain for
handling trouble incidents, whereas the central NOC is gathering
the tickets in the normalized format for repository and handling.
XML is used as the common representation language. The model was
defined and used as part of the networking support activity of
the EGEE project (Enabling Grids for E-sciencE).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 5
1.1. Terminology ................................................ 6
1.2. Notations .................................................. 6
1.3. About the Network Trouble Ticket Data Model ................ 6
1.4. About the Network Trouble Ticket Implementation ............ 7
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
2. NTTDM Types and Definitions ................................... 8
2.1 Types and Definitions for the TYPE Attributes ............... 8
2.1.1 Defined ................................................. 8
2.1.2 Free .................................................... 8
2.1.3 Multiple ................................................ 8
2.1.4 List .................................................... 8
2.2 Types and Definitions for the VALID FORMAT Attributes ....... 9
2.2.1 Predefined String ....................................... 9
2.2.1.1 Definitions of the Predefined Values ................10
2.2.2 String ................................................. 13
2.2.3 Datetime ............................................... 14
3. NTTDM ........................................................ 14
3.1 NTTDM components ........................................... 14
3.1.1 NTTDM Attributes ....................................... 14
3.2 NTTDM Aggregate classes ................................... 15
3.2.1 NTTDM-Document class ................................... 15
3.2.2 Ticket class ........................................... 15
3.2.3 Ticket origin information .............................. 17
3.2.3.1 PARTNER_ID ......................................... 17
3.2.3.2 ORIGINAL_ID ........................................ 17
3.2.4 Ticket information ..................................... 17
3.2.4.1 TT_ID .............................................. 18
3.2.4.2 TT_TITLE ........................................... 18
3.2.4.3 TT_TYPE ............................................ 18
3.2.4.4 TT_PRIORITY ........................................ 19
3.2.4.5 TT_STATUS .......................................... 19
3.2.4.6 TT_SOURCE .......................................... 19
3.2.4.7 TT_OPEN_DATETIME ................................... 20
3.2.4.8 TT_CLOSE_DATETIME .................................. 20
3.2.5 Trouble details ........................................ 20
3.2.5.1 TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION ............................... 20
3.2.5.2 TT_LONG_DESCRIPTION ................................ 21
3.2.5.3 TYPE ............................................... 21
3.2.5.4 TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT ............................... 21
3.2.5.5 START_DATETIME ..................................... 22
3.2.5.6 DETECT_DATETIME .................................... 22
3.2.5.7 REPORT_DATETIME .................................... 22
3.2.5.8 END_DATETIME ....................................... 23
3.2.5.9 TT_LAST_UPDATE_TIME ................................ 23
3.2.5.10 TIME_WINDOW_START ................................. 23
3.2.5.11 TIME_WINDOW_END ................................... 24
3.2.5.12 WORK_PLAN_START_DATETIME .......................... 24
3.2.5.13 WORK_PLAN_END_DATETIME ............................ 24
3.2.6 Related data ........................................... 25
3.2.6.1 RELATED_EXTERNAL_TICKETS ........................... 25
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.6.2 ADDITIONAL_DATA .................................... 25
3.2.6.3 RELATED_ACTIVITY ................................... 25
3.2.6.4 HISTORY ............................................ 26
3.2.7 Localization and impact ................................ 26
3.2.7.1 AFFECTED_COMMUNITY ................................. 26
3.2.7.2 AFFECTED_SERVICE ................................... 26
3.2.7.3 LOCATION ........................................... 27
3.2.7.4 NETWORK_NODE ....................................... 27
3.2.7.5 NETWORK_LINK_CIRCUIT ............................... 27
3.2.7.6 END_LINE_LOCATION_A ................................ 28
3.2.7.7 END_LINE_LOCATION_B ................................ 28
3.2.8 Contact information .................................... 28
3.2.8.1 OPEN_ENGINEER ...................................... 28
3.2.8.2 CONTACT_ENGINEERS .................................. 29
3.2.8.3 CLOSE_ENGINEER ..................................... 29
3.2.9 Security ............................................... 29
3.2.9.1 HASH ............................................... 29
3.3 NTTDM Representation ....................................... 30
4. Internationalization Issues .................................. 32
5. Example ...................................................... 32
5.1 Link Failure ............................................... 32
6. Sample Implementation: XML Schema ............................ 33
7. Security Considerations ...................................... 56
8. IANA Considerations ........................................... 57
9. Acknowledgements ............................................. 58
10. List of Acronyms ............................................ 59
11. References .................................................. 60
12. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 61
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
1. Introduction
Problem impact assessment, reporting identification and handling
as well as trouble information dissemination and delegation of
authority are some of the main tasks that have to be implemented
by the members of a Grid, for succession in managing the network
and maintaining operational efficiency of the services offered to its
users.
Different TT systems are used by each network domain, delivering TTs
in alternate formats, while TT load is growing proportionally with
the network size and the serviced users.
Hereby we define a data model for TT normalization initially
targeted for networking providers serving EGEE [1]. The model is
designed in accordance with RFC 1297 [11], meeting requirements
of the multiple TT systems used.
It is both effective and comprehensive, as it compensates for
the core activities of the NOCs. It is also dynamic, allowing
additional options to be included in the future, according to demand.
It provides an XML representation for conveying incident information
across administrative domains between parties that have an
operational responsibility of remediation or a watch-and-warning over
a defined constituency.
The data model encodes information about hosts, networks, and the
services running on these systems; attack methodology and associated
forensic evidence; impact of the activity; and limited approaches for
documenting workflow.
The Network Trouble Ticket Data Model (NTTDM) aims to simplify
TT exchange within the boundaries of a Grid and to enhance the
functional cooperation of every Network operation Centre (NOC)
and the Grid Operation Centre (GOC). Community adoption of the
NTTDM enhances trouble resolution within the grid framework
and imparts network status cognisance by modelling collaboration
and information exchange among the operators. The NTTDM definition
provides:
o A common format that allows GOC as well as all participating
NOCs to store, exchange, manage and analyze TTs (assessment
of TT impact).
o Increased automation in handling a TT since the network
operators have a common view to the trouble.
The model was designed and used as part of the networking
support activity of the EGEE [1] project, as part of the ENOC (EGEE
Network Operating Centre) [4] procedures for managing the Grid.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
1.1. Terminology
NTTDM uses specific keywords to describe the various data
components. These keywords are:
Defined, Free, Multiple, List, Predefined String, String,
Datetime, Solved, Cancelled, Inactive, Superseded,
Opened/Closed, Operational, Informational, Administrative,
Test.
Those in this document are to be interpreted as described in
Section 2.
1.2. Notations
The NTTDM is specified in two ways, as an abstract data model
and as an XML Schema. Section 3 provides a Unified Modeling
Language (UML) [5] model describing the individual classes and
their relationship with each other. The semantics of each
class are discussed and their attributes explained. In Section
6, this UML model is converted in an XML Schema [6, 7, 8, 9].
A specific namespace [10] is also defined.
The term "XML document" refers to any instance of an XML
Document. The term "NTTDM document" refers to specific
elements and attributes of the NTTDM schema. Finally, the
terms "class", and "element" will be used interchangeably to
reference either a given UML class in the data model or its
corresponding schema implementation.
1.3. About the Network Trouble Ticket Data Model
The NTTDM is a data representation that provides a framework
for normalizing and sharing information among network operators
and the GOC regarding troubles within the Grid boundaries.
There has been a lot of thought processing during the design of
the data model:
o The data model serves as a common storage and exchang format.
o Every NOC still uses its home TT system for network management
within its area of control.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
o As there is no universally adopted definition for a trouble,
in the NTTDM definition the term is used with a comprehensive
meaning to cover all NOCs.
o Handling every possible definition of a trouble incident
would call for an extremely expanded and complex data model.
Therefore, the NTTDM purpose is to serve as the basis to
normalize and exchange TTs. It is flexible and expressive in
order to ensure that specific NOC requirements are met.
Specific NOC information is kept outside the NTTDM and
external databases can be used to feed it.
o The domain of managing the information is not fully
standardized and must rely on free-form textual descriptions.
The NTTDM attempts to strike a balance between supporting
this free-form content, while still allowing automated
processing of incident information.
The NTTDM is only one of feasible TT data representations. The
goal of this design was to be as effective and comprehensive to
cover for the management of a general grid environment. The
already used TT formats influenced the design of the NTTDM.
1.4. About the Network Trouble Ticket Implementation
Here we describe an example of typical use case.
The Grid project EGEE manages its infrastructure as network
overlay over the European NRENs and want to be able to warn
EGEE sites of the unavailability of the network. Thanks to
collaboration with its network provider the EGEE NOC receive
TTs (800 tickets/month, 2500 emails/month) from 20 NRENs and
should be able to cope with the heavy TT process. Thanks to
the NTTDM the EGEE NOC can automate the TT workflow:
o TT is filtered, sorted and stored in local DB.
o TT impact on the Grid is assessed.
o TT is pushed to dashboard and other tools (EGEE TT system,
statistics, etc.)
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
2. NTTDM Types and Definitions
The various data elements of the TT data model are typed. This
section discusses these data types. When possible, native Schema
data types were adopted, but for more complicated formats, regular
expressions or external standards were used.
2.1 Types and Definitions for the TYPE attribute.
These types are used to describe the TYPE attribute.
2.1.1 Defined
The Defined data type means that the data model provides a mean
to compute this value from the rest of the fields.
The Defined data type is implemented as a "Defined" in the
schema.
2.1.2 Free
The Free data type means that the value can be freely chosen.
All Free string should have as an attribute the language used.
The Free data type is implemented as a "Free" in the schema.
2.1.3 Multiple
The Multiple data type consists of one value among multiple
fixed values.
The Multiple data type is implemented as an "Multiple" in the
schema.
2.1.4 List
List means many values among multiple fixed values.
The List data type is implemented as a "List" in the schema.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
2.2 Types and Definitions for the VALID FORMAT attributes
2.2.1 Predefined String
A Predefined String means the different values are predefined
in the data model.
Each field that requires a Predefined String contains a specific
value. Here is the table that shows the allowed values for such
fields.
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| FIELD NAME | VALUES |
+ -----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_TYPE | Operational, Informational, |
| | Administrative, Test |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TYPE | Scheduled, Unscheduled |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_PRIORITY | Low, Medium, High |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION | Core Line Fault, Access Line |
| | Fault, Degraded Service, Router |
| | Hardware Fault, Router Software |
| | Fault, Routing Problem, Undefined |
| | Problem, Network congestion, |
| | Client Upgrade, IPv6, QoS, VoIP, |
| | Other |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT | No impact, Reduced redundancy, |
| | Minor performance impact, Severe |
| | performance impact, |
| | No connectivity, On backup, |
| | At risk, Unknown |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_STATUS | Opened, Updated, Closed, Solved, |
| | Inactive, Cancelled, Reopened, |
| | Superseded |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| TT_SOURCE | Users, Monitoring, Other NOC |
+------------------------+-----------------------------------+
Figure 1: The allowed Predefined String values
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
The Predefined String data type is implemented as an "xs:string" in
the schema with a sequence of enumerations for the allowed values.
2.2.1.1 Definitions of the Predefined Values
TT_TYPE
o Operational: for network incident & maintenance only.
o Informational: Information about the TT system or the
exchange interface (maintenance, upgrade).
o Administrative: Information about the access to the TTS
(credentials) or the exchange interface.
o Test: to test the TT system or the exchange interface, etc.
TYPE
o Scheduled: the incident was scheduled to happen.
o Unscheduled: the incident was unscheduled.
TT_PRIORITY
o Low: the TT priority is low.
o Medium: the TT priority is medium.
o High: the TT priority is high.
TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION
o Core Line Fault: malfunction of a high bandwidth Core line.
o Access Line Fault: malfunction of a medium bandwidth Access line.
o Degraded Service.
o Router Hardware Fault: malfunction of the router hardware.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
o Router Software Fault: malfunction of the router software.
o Routing Problem: incident regarding the routing service.
o Undefined Problem: the nature of the problem is not
identified.
o Network congestion: problem due to traffic at the network
(blocked).
o Client Upgrade: incidents regarding clients/services upgrade.
o IPv6: incident regarding the IPv6 network.
o QoS: incident regarding the QoS of the network.
o VoIP: incident regarding VoIP.
o Other: non listed incident.
TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT
o No impact: the incident does not cause any impacts.
o Reduced redundancy: the incident produces reduction at the
redundancy.
o Minor performance impact: the incident causes a minor
performance impact.
o Severe performance impact: the incident causes a severe
performance impact.
o No connectivity: the incident causes failure of connectivity.
o On backup: the incident produces malfunction on backup services.
o At risk: the incident should not have any impact but possibly
it may cause some trouble.
o Unknown: the nature of the impact is not identified.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
TT_STATUS
o Opened: the ticket is opened.
o Closed: the ticket is closed.
o Updated: the ticket's contents have been updated.
o Cancelled: the ticket has been opened twice, one of the both
tickets is cancelled and a relation is done between them via
RELATED_ACTIVITY.
o Solved: the incident is solved but the team prefers to
monitor for check.
o Opened/closed stands for tickets that are opened only to
report an incident that is already solved.
o Inactive: the ticket is under the responsibility of an
external domain and is no more under the domain control.
o Reopened: the ticket was closed by error, or the problem
was faulty declared solved. Historical data are very important
at this case.
o Superseded: the ticket has been superseded by another one
(case of a bigger problem having raised many tickets and
being merged in one single incident). The RELATED_ACTIVITY
field should include the master ticket reference.
Allowed transitions for TT_STATUS are only those following.
Possible final states are indicated with (X).
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
+------------------+
| Opened/Closed (X)|
+------------------+
|
|
V
+--------------+
/-----------------------| Reopened |<-------------------\
| | |---------\ |
| +--------------+ | |
| ^ | |
| | | |
| V | |
| +-------------------+ | |
| | Superseded (X) | | |
| | or Inactive (X) | | |
| /----------------->| or Cancelled (X) |<---\ | |
| | +-------------------+ | | |
| | ^ | | |
| | | | V |
| | +--------+ | +--------+ |
| | /---------| Opened |---/ | Solved |-----\ |
| | | | |---------------->| | | |
| | | +--------+ +--------+ | |
| | | | ^ | |
V | V | | | |
+---------+ | | | |
| |----------(|)-------------------------/ V V
| Updated | | +------------+
| |----------(|)---------------------------->| |
+---------+ | | Closed (X) |
\----------------------------->| |
+------------+
Figure 2: TT_STATUS transition diagram
2.2.2 String
The String value is defined by the user of the model.
The String data type is implemented as an "xs:string" in the
schema.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
2.2.3 Datetime
Date-time strings are represented by the Datetime data type.
Each date-time string identifies a particular instant in time;
ranges are not supported.
Date-time strings are formatted according to a subset of ISO
8601: 2000 documented in RFC 3339.
The Datetime data type is implemented as an "xs:dateTime" in
the schema.
3. NTTDM
In this section, the individual components of NTTDM will be
discussed in detail. This class provides a standardized
representation for commonly exchanged Field Name data.
3.1 NTTDM Components
3.1.1 NTTDM Attributes
The Field Name class has four attributes. Each attribute
provides information about a Field Name instance. The
attributes that characterize one instance constitute all the
information required to form the data model.
DESCRIPTION
This field contains a short description of the field name.
TYPE
The TYPE attribute contains information about the type of the field
name it depends on. The values that it may contain are:
Defined, Free, Multiple, List.
VALID FORMAT
This attribute contains information about the format of each field.
The values that it may contain are: Predefined String, String,
Datetime.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
MANDATORY
This attribute indicates if the information of each field is
required or is optional. In case the information is required
the field MANDATORY contains the word: "YES". On the
contrary, when filling the information is optional, the
field MANDATORY contains the word "NO".
3.2 NTTDM Aggregate Classes
3.2.1 NTTDM-Document class
The NTTDM-Document class is the top-level class in NTTDM. All
NTTDM documents are an instance of this class.
+---------------+
| NTTDM-Document|
+---------------+
| version |<>--{1..*}--[ Ticket ]
| lang |
+---------------+
Figure 3: NTTDM-Document class
The aggregate class that constitutes NTTDM-Document is:
Ticket
One or more. The information related to a single ticket.
The NTTDM-Document class has two attributes:
version
STRING. The value of this attribute MUST be "1.00"
lang
Required.
3.2.2 Ticket class
Every ticket is represented by an instance of the Ticket class.
This class provides a standardized representation for commonly
exchanged TT data.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
+---------+
| Ticket |
+---------+
| lang |<>----------[ Partner_ID ]
| |<>----------[ Original_ID ]
| |<>----------[ TT_ID ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Open_Datetime ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Close_Datetime ]
| |<>----------[ Start_Datetime ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Detect_Datetime ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Report_Datetime ]
| |<>----------[ End_Datetime ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Last_Update_Time ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Time_Window_Start ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Time_Window_End ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Work_Plan_Start_Datetime ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Work_Plan_End_Datetime ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Title ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Short_Description ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ TT_Long_Description ]
| |<>----------[ Type ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Type ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Impact_Assessment ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Related_External_Tickets ]
| |<>----------[ Location ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Network_Node ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Network_Link_Circuit ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ End_Line_Location_A ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ End_Line_Location_B ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Open_Engineer ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Contact_Engineers ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Close_Engineer ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ TT_Priority ]
| |<>----------[ TT_Status ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Additional_Data ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Related_Activity ]
| |<>----------[ History ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Hash ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ TT_Source ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Affected_Community ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Affected_Service ]
+---------+
Figure 4: the Ticket class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
lang
Required.
The Field Names are the Aggregate Classes that constitute the
NTTDM and each of them is an element that is characterized by a
quadruple (DESCRIPTION, TYPE, VALID FORMAT, MANDATORY).
3.2.3 Ticket origin information
3.2.3.1 PARTNER_ID
+--------------+
| PARTNER_ID |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The unique ID of the TT source partner.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 5: Partner_ID Class
3.2.3.2 ORIGINAL_ID
+--------------+
| ORIGINAL_ID |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | TT ID that was assigned by the party.
| TYPE | Free.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 6: Original_ID Class
3.2.4 Ticket information
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.4.1 TT_ID
+--------------+
| TT_ID |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The unique ID of the TT.
| TYPE | As defined below.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 7: TT_ID Class
TYPE is constructed as "PARTNER_ID"_"ORIGINAL_ID".
PARTNER_ID and ORIGINAL_ID MUST therefore not
contain an underscore character.
3.2.4.2 TT_TITLE
+---------------+
| TT_TITLE |
+---------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The title of the TT.
| TYPE | DEFINED.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+---------------+
Figure 8: TT_Title Class
3.2.4.3 TT_TYPE
+---------------+
| TT_TYPE |
+---------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The type of the TT.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | Yes
+---------------+
Figure 9: Type Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.4.4 TT_PRIORITY
+--------------+
| TT_PRIORITY |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The TT priority.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------+
Figure 10: TT_Priority Class
3.2.4.5 TT_STATUS
+--------------+
| TT_STATUS |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The TT status.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 11: TT_Status Class
3.2.4.6 TT_SOURCE
+--------------+
| TT_SOURCE |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The source of the ticket.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------+
Figure 12: TT_Source Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.4.7 TT_OPEN_DATETIME
+------------------+
| TT_OPEN_DATETIME |
+------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime when the TT was opened.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+------------------+
Figure 13: TT_Open_Datetime Class
3.2.4.8 TT_CLOSE_DATETIME
+-------------------+
| TT_CLOSE_DATETIME |
+-------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime when the TT was closed.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+-------------------+
Figure 14: TT_Close_Datetime Class
3.2.5 Trouble details
3.2.5.1 TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION
+----------------------+
| TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION |
+----------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The short description of the trouble.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+----------------------+
Figure 15: TT_Short_Description Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.5.2 TT_LONG_DESCRIPTION
+---------------------+
| TT_LONG_DESCRIPTION |
+---------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The detailed description of the
| | incident/maintenance reported in the TT.
| TYPE | Free.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+---------------------+
Figure 16: TT_Long_Description Class
3.2.5.3 TYPE
+--------------+
| TYPE |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The type of the trouble.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 17: Type Class
3.2.5.4 TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT
+----------------------+
| TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT |
+----------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The impact of the incident/maintenance.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Predefined String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+----------------------+
Figure 18: TT_Impact_Assessement Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.5.5 START_DATETIME
+----------------+
| START_DATETIME |
+----------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime that the
| | incident/maintenance started.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+----------------+
Figure 19: Start_Datetime Class
3.2.5.6 DETECT_DATETIME
+-------------------+
| DETECT_DATETIME |
+-------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime when the incident was detected.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No.
+-------------------+
Figure 20: Detect_Datetime Class
3.2.5.7 REPORT_DATETIME
+-----------------+
| REPORT_DATETIME |
+-----------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime when the incident was reported.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No.
+-----------------+
Figure 21: Report_Datetime Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.5.8 END_DATETIME
+--------------+
| END_DATETIME |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The datetime when the incident/maintenance ended.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 22: End_Datetime Class
3.2.5.9 TT_LAST_UPDATE_TIME
+---------------------+
| TT_LAST_UPDATE_TIME |
+---------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The last datetime when the TT was updated.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+---------------------+
Figure 23: TT_Last_Update_Time Class
3.2.5.10 TIME_WINDOW_START
+-------------------+
| TIME_WINDOW_START |
+-------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The window start time in which planned
| | maintenance may occur.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No, unless TYPE is "Scheduled".
+-------------------+
Figure 24: Time_Window_Start Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.5.11 TIME_WINDOW_END
+-----------------+
| TIME_WINDOW_END |
+-----------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The window end time in which planned
| | maintenance may occur.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No, unless TYPE is "Scheduled".
+-----------------+
Figure 25: Time_Window_End Class
3.2.5.12 WORK_PLAN_START_DATETIME
+--------------------------+
| WORK_PLAN_START_DATETIME |
+--------------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Work planned (expected) start time
| | in case of maintenance.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------------------+
Figure 26: Work_Plan_Start_Datetime Class
3.2.5.13 WORK_PLAN_END_DATETIME
+------------------------+
| WORK_PLAN_END_DATETIME |
+------------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Work planned (expected) end time in case
| | of maintenance.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | Datetime.
| MANDATORY | No.
+------------------------+
Figure 27: Work_Plan_End_Datetime Class
The period delimited by WORK_PLAN_START_DATETIME and
WORK_PLAN_END_DATETIME must be included in the period delimited
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
by TIME_WINDOW_START and TIME_WINDOW_END, duplicated with
{START, END}_DATETIME, even in case of maintenance.
3.2.6 Related data
3.2.6.1 RELATED_EXTERNAL_TICKETS
+--------------------------+
| RELATED_EXTERNAL_TICKETS |
+--------------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The NOC entity related to the incident.
| TYPE | List.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------------------+
Figure 28: Related_External_Tickets Class
3.2.6.2 ADDITIONAL_DATA
+-----------------+
| ADDITIONAL_DATA |
+-----------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Additional information.
| TYPE | Free.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+-----------------+
Figure 29: Additional_Data Class
3.2.6.3 RELATED_ACTIVITY
+------------------+
| RELATED_ACTIVITY |
+------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The trouble TT IDs of the related incidents.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+------------------+
Figure 30: Related_Activity Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.6.4 HISTORY
+--------------+
| HISTORY |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The necessary Actions/events log.
| TYPE | Free.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 31: History Class
Note: This field must NOT be empty when the VALID FORMAT attribute of
the TT_STATUS field is different from "OPENED" or "OPENED/CLOSED".
3.2.7 Localization and Impact
3.2.7.1 AFFECTED_COMMUNITY
+--------------------+
| AFFECTED_COMMUNITY |
+--------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Information about the community that was
| | affected by the incident.
| TYPE | Free.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------------+
Figure 32: Affected_Community Class
3.2.7.2 AFFECTED_SERVICE
+------------------+
| AFFECTED_SERVICE |
+------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The service that was affected by the incident.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+------------------+
Figure 33: Affected_Service Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.7.3 LOCATION
+--------------+
| LOCATION |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Location (Pop site, city, etc) of the
| | incident/maintenance.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | Yes.
+--------------+
Figure 34: Location Class
3.2.7.4 NETWORK_NODE
+--------------+
| NETWORK_NODE |
+--------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The NOC network node related to the incident.
| TYPE | List.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+--------------+
Figure 35: Network_Node Class
3.2.7.5 NETWORK_LINK_CIRCUIT
+----------------------+
| NETWORK_LINK_CIRCUIT |
+----------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Name of the network line related to the
| | incident.
| TYPE | List.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+----------------------+
Figure 36: Network_Link_Circuit Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.7.6 END_LINE_LOCATION_A
+---------------------+
| END_LINE_LOCATION_A |
+---------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | A-end of the link.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+---------------------+
Figure 37: End_Line_Location_A Class
3.2.7.7 END_LINE_LOCATION_B
+---------------------+
| END_LINE_LOCATION_B |
+---------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | B-end of the link.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+---------------------+
Figure 38: End_Line_Location_B Class
3.2.8 Contact information
3.2.8.1 OPEN_ENGINEER
+---------------+
| OPEN_ENGINEER |
+---------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The engineer that opened the ticket.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+---------------+
Figure 39: Open_Engineer Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.2.8.2 CONTACT_ENGINEERS
+-------------------+
| CONTACT_ENGINEERS |
+-------------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The engineers responsible for the incident
| | settlement.
| TYPE | List.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+-------------------+
Figure 40: Contact_Engineers Class
3.2.8.3 CLOSE_ENGINEER
+----------------+
| CLOSE_ENGINEER |
+----------------+
| DESCRIPTION | The engineer that closed the ticket.
| TYPE | Multiple.
| VALID FORMAT | String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+----------------+
Figure 41: Close_Engineer Class
3.2.9 Security
3.2.9.1 HASH
+-------------+
| HASH |
+-------------+
| DESCRIPTION | Encrypted message hash.
| TYPE | DEFINED.
| VALID FORMAT| String.
| MANDATORY | No.
+-------------+
Figure 42: Hash Class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
3.3 NTTDM Representation
The collected and processed TTs received from multiple
telecommunications networks are adjusted in a normalized NTTDM.
Below, there is the representation of this normalized Data Model.
The "DESCRIPTION" attribute is implied.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
+------------------------+--------+------------------+---------+
| FIELD NAME | TYPE |VALID FORMAT |MANDATORY|
+------------------------+--------+------------------+---------+
|PARTNER_ID |MULTIPLE|STRING |YES |
|ORIGINAL_ID |FREE |STRING |YES |
|TT_ID |DEFINED |STRING |YES |
|TT_OPEN_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |YES |
|TT_CLOSE_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |YES |
|START_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |YES |
|DETECT_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|REPORT_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|END_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |YES |
|TT_LAST_UPDATE_TIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |YES |
|TIME_WINDOW_START |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|TIME_WINDOW_END |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|WORK_PLAN_START_DATETIME|MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|WORK_PLAN_END_DATETIME |MULTIPLE|DATETIME |NO |
|TT_TITLE |DEFINED |STRING |YES |
|TT_SHORT_DESCRIPTION |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |YES |
|TT_LONG_DESCRIPTION |FREE |STRING |NO |
|TYPE |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |YES |
|TT_TYPE |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |YES |
|TT_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |YES |
|RELATED_EXTERNAL_TICKETS|LIST |STRING |NO |
|LOCATION |MULTIPLE|STRING |YES |
|NETWORK_NODE |LIST |STRING |NO |
|NETWORK_LINK_CIRCUIT |LIST |STRING |NO |
|END_LINE_LOCATION_A |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|END_LINE_LOCATION_B |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|OPEN_ENGINEER |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|CONTACT_ENGINEERS |LIST |STRING |NO |
|CLOSE_ENGINEER |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|TT_PRIORITY |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |NO |
|TT_STATUS |MULTIPLE|PREDEFINED STRING |YES |
|ADDITIONAL_DATA |FREE |STRING |NO |
|RELATED_ACTIVITY |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|HISTORY |FREE |STRING |YES |
|HASH |DEFINED |STRING |NO |
|TT_SOURCE |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
|AFFECTED_COMMUNITY |FREE |STRING |NO |
|AFFECTED_SERVICE |MULTIPLE|STRING |NO |
+------------------------+--------+------------------+---------+
Figure 43: the Field Name class
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
4. Internationalization Issues
Internationalization and localization is of specific concern to
the NTTDM, since it is only through collaboration, often across
language barriers, that certain incidents be resolved. The
NTTDM supports this goal by depending on XML constructs, and
through explicit design choices in the data model.
The main advantage of the model is that it provides a
normalized data type that is implemented fully in the English
language and can be used conveniently. It also supports Free
formed text that can be written in any language. In the future
it will provide translation services for all the free-formed
text.
5. Example
5.1 Link Failure
In this section an example is provided of network TTs exchanged
using the proposed format. This is an actual GRNet ticket
normalized according to TTDM. Fields that were not included in
the ticket are left blank.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
7. Security Considerations
The NTTDM data model defines a data model and the relevant XML
schema for trouble ticket normalization; as such, NTTDM itself
does not raise any security concerns. However, some security
issues SHOULD be considered as network TTs could carry sensitive
information (IP addresses, contact details, authentication details,
commercial providers involved etc.) about flagship institutions
(military, health centre...).
The security considerations MAY involve measures during the exchange
as well as during processing of the information.
The HASH field is intended to provide an integrity ensurance
attribute within the exchanged tickets, however it does not ensure
integrity alone.
Confidentiality MAY be ensured by encrypting whole tickets or only
some parts. This could allow having meaningful tickets to be
disclosed while only sensitive information protected.
Peer entity authentication SHOULD be provided in order to establish
session with data origin authentication regardless of the form in
which the TTs are exchanged, being either delivered through email,
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
web forms or through a SOAP service. The latter is considered the
better choice, the model itself though does not specify the
communications requirements.
The underlying communications service MUST provide guarantees to
properly address integrity, confidentiality and peer entity
authentication. The selection of the enforcing mechanisms is not in
the scope of this document and the choice is up to the implementors.
For data processing security each participating organization MAY
use its own privacy policy, as part of its own data processing
system. This approach avoids any interoperability issues and does not
pose any extra burden for the adoption of the current scheme into the
operational procedures of the NOCs. Unauthorized and inappropriate
usage MUST be avoided.
8. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe an XML namespace and schema
conforming to a registry mechanism described in [12]
Registration for the NTTDM namespace:
o URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:nttdm-1.0
o Registrant Contact: See the first author of the "Author's
Address" section of this document.
o XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML
specification.
Registration for the NTTDM XML schema:
o URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:nttdm-1.0
o Registrant Contact: See the first author of the "Author's
Address" section of this document.
o XML: See the "NTTDM Schema" in Section 8 of this document.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
9. Acknowledgements
The following groups and individuals contributed substantially
to this document and are gratefully acknowledged:
- Rodwell Toby, Apted Emma, DANTE
- Allocchio Claudio, Vuagnin Gloria, Battista Claudia, GARR
- Schauerhammer Karin, Stoy Robert, DFN
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
10. List of acronyms
TT: Trouble Ticket
NTTDM: Network Trouble Ticket Data Model
DB: Data Base
EGEE: Enabling Grid for E-sciencE
ENOC: EGEE NOC
NOC: Network Operation Centre
GOC: Grid Operation Centre
NREN: National Research and Educational Networks
QoS: Quality of service
SLA: Service level Agreement
UML: Unified Modeling Language
XML: Extensible Markup Language
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
11. References
[1] http://www.eu-egee.org/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality of service
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service Level Agreement
[4] http://egee-sa2.web.cern.ch/egee-sa2/ENOC.html
[5] Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., and G. Booch, "The Unified
Modeling Language Reference Model," ISBN 020130998X,
Addison-Wesley, 1998.
[6] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation,
October 2000,
.
[7] XML Schema Part 0: Primer, W3C Recommendation, 2 May 2001.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/
[8] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML XML Schema Part 1:
Structures Second Edition", W3C Recommendation,
October 2004,
.
[9] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes
Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004,
.
[10] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C
Recommendation, January 1999,
.
[11] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1297.txt
[12] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January
2004.
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
12. Authors' Addresses
Dimitris Zisiadis
Centre for Research and Technology
6th km Thermi-Thessaloniki, 57001
Hellas
Email: dzisiadis@iti.gr
Spyros Kopsidas
Centre for Research and Technology
6th km Thermi-Thessaloniki, 57001
Hellas
Email: spyros@uth.gr
Matina Tsavli
Centre for Research and Technology
6th km Thermi-Thessaloniki, 57001
Hellas
Email: sttsavli@uth.gr
Leandros Tassiulas
Centre for Research and Technology
6th km Thermi-Thessaloniki, 57001
Hellas
Email: leandros@uth.gr
Chrysostomos Tziouvaras
Greek Research and Technology Network
56, Mesogion Av. 11527, Athens
Hellas
Email: tziou@grnet.gr
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft NTTDM August 2010
Guillaume Cessieux
Computer Centre of National Institute for Nuclear Physics and
Particle
Physics (IN2P3-CC) - France
Email: Guillaume.Cessieux@cc.in2p3.fr
Xavier Jeannin
National Centre for Scientific Research
Network Unit - UREC - France
Email: Xavier.Jeannin@urec.cnrs.fr
Zisiadis, et al. Expires February 15, 2011 [Page 62]