[Policy] PCELS position

"Pana, Mircea" <mpana@metasolv.com> Sat, 20 September 2003 15:20 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10951 for <policy-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jVs-00033S-8d for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:19:48 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8KFJ8Pk011715 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:19:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jVp-0002zx-GL; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:19:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0jIx-0000sX-Vv for policy@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:07:24 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA22732 for <policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0SyA-0001rg-00 for policy@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:39:14 -0400
Received: from mail.metasolv.com ([12.105.131.5] helo=srvmaddog.metasolv.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0Sy0-0001r6-00 for policy@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:39:04 -0400
Received: by SRVMADDOG with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <S0L0Q0QM>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:42:38 -0500
Message-ID: <A33EE5A81E634B488B099FD31F65196153CDE2@srvotemail.metasolv.com>
From: "Pana, Mircea" <mpana@metasolv.com>
To: "'policy@ietf.org'" <policy@ietf.org>
Cc: 'John Strassner' <John.Strassner@intelliden.com>, 'David McTavish' <dmctavish@sandvine.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:33:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C37EF5.ACFB1810"
Subject: [Policy] PCELS position
Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy>, <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Policy Framework <policy.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy>, <mailto:policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

After having read so many arguments on the position of PCELS relative to
PCLS I've come to the conclusion that people wish PCELS to be either a fully
interoperable extension of PCLS or a stand-alone policy schema. At the same
time the main goal of PCELS was to implement PCIMe (as an increment of
PCIM).

Based on these facts, I can see three major options (and perhaps a lot of
variations):
1. If PCELS ignores or alters some of the PCIMe recommendations, then it can
be fully interoperable with PCLS.
2. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe it must at the minimum define
replacement for a couple of the schema items defined by PCLS.
3. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe and stand-alone (i.e. no
dependency on PCLS), it would need to redefine many (otherwise re-usable)
PCLS schema items.

So, my question to the group is: of the three options above, which one do
you like the most (or find the easiest to live with)?

Joel, is #1 a viable option?

Thank you,
Mircea.