RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

[John Strassner <[e-mail]>]

I fundamentally disagree with rebuilding RFC 3460, which is an INFORMATION
MODEL, because of DATA MODEL concerns. That is exactly backwards, because it
ensures that the information model cannot be mapped to other types of data
models.

 

regards,
John 

John C. Strassner 
Chief Strategy Officer 
Intelliden Inc. 
90 South Cascade Avenue 
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA 
phone:  [phone] 
  fax:     [phone] 
email:    [e-mail] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:14 AM
To: 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

 

W.r.t.

>  Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such 

>  modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires


> of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS? 

 

PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for example because of this effort to try
and MAP it onto LDAP, we

find that we did some things in PCIMe that we should not have done, then,
with WG consensus,

we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed
Standard.

That is part of the normal standars track process. That is, we get something
to PS, then we start

using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr
CIM docs (like the

other docs we did in Policy, and like the IPsec work, the "implementing" is
sort of mapping onto for 

example LDAP I think)... and if we find major issues, then we fix and
recycle at PS. If we do not

find major issues, we may advance to DS.

 

Hope this helps.

Bert