Re: [I2nsf] Service Layer Policies - Post 0: note structure

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

John,

Thank you very much for structuring the discussion. This is very helpful.


Maybe I am jumping ahead. For Post 5,  the “object” currently used in I2NSF framework is same as the  “Condition” in PCIM to describe the constraints. If no one disagree, I propose to align with PCIM, i.e. call it “Subject-Condition-Action-Function”.

Regards,
Linda

From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2015 7:00 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [I2nsf] Service Layer Policies - Post 0: note structure

The I2NSF framework draft mentions PCIM (RFC3060) and PCIMe (RFC3460) as possible candidates for guiding the policy structure that can be mapped to the Capability Layer's "Subject-Object-Action-Function" paradigm.
During IETF94, I expressed discomfort with the above paradigm. However, this is a complex subject, and is more easily understood by breaking this up into smaller discussions. Here is the order of notes that I will post:

   Post 0:  this post
   Post 1:  problems in using PCIM
   Post 2:  problems in using PCIMe
   Post 3:  differentiating between groups and roles
   Post 4:  differentiating between context, constraints, and conditions
   Post 5:  specific worries about the "Subject-Object-Action-Function" paradigm
   Post 6:  proposed replacement policy structure

Posts 1 and 2 clarify the problems in using PCIM and PCIMe, respectively, which I volunteered to do.

Posts 3 and 4 are fundamental to posts 5 and 6, as they represent software building blocks that are critical for designing and implementing Service Policies in a scalable and robust manner. These also expand on points in posts 1 and 2.

Post 5 is the heart of the manner, but can't really be tackled until the preceding posts were done. Post 6 builds on the previous posts.

regards,
John
--
regards,
John