RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position
"Pana, Mircea" <mpana@metasolv.com> Mon, 22 September 2003 14:32 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 KAA17781 for <policy-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1RjO-0006Tn-Jp for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:02 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8MEW2jp024863 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1RjO-0006Sv-Aa; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:32:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A1Rip-0006Pr-Ni for policy@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:31:27 -0400
Received: from srvmaddog.metasolv.com (mail.metasolv.com [12.105.131.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17643 for <policy@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:31:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by SRVMADDOG with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id <S0L0S7S9>; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:30:03 -0500
Message-ID: <A33EE5A81E634B488B099FD31F65196153CDE4@srvotemail.metasolv.com>
From: "Pana, Mircea" <mpana@metasolv.com>
To: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, 'David McTavish' <dmctavish@sandvine.com>, "Pana, Mircea" <mpana@metasolv.com>, "'policy@ietf.org'" <policy@ietf.org>
Cc: 'John Strassner' <John.Strassner@intelliden.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:20:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C38114.B848BE90"
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>
Maybe there is no need for such drastic measures. Maybe it is only a matter of interpretation of the PCIMe recommendations. After all PCIMe is quite lenient wrt. that is and what is not used in submodels (see PCIMe section 5.10.). Some of the structural changes proposed by PCIMe make it difficult for PCELS to be interoperable with PCLS. These are as follows: 1. PCIMe defines a new abstract class, PolicySet, and makes it a superclass of the already defined PolicyRule and PolicyGroup 2. In PCIMe the PolicyRule.Priority property has been deprecated in favor of a new relative priority mechanism. 3. PolicyRepository is deprecated in favor of the new ReusablePolicyContainer. PCELS could be interoperable with PCLS if it was to interpret these PCIMe changes as follows: A. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the abstract PolicySet. (see also B.) B. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the modified PolicyGroup. Implementations can use (the equivalent of) a PolicyRule with no Actions or Conditions for PolicyGroup objects. C. implementations SHOULD (as opposed to MUST) use the relative priority mechanism instead of the absolute priority attribute of PolicyRule D. PolicyRepository SHOULD not be used directly but it is acceptable for instances of this class to occur through inheritance. So, the question is whether the statements A. through D. violate PCIMe or not. Opinions? Thanks, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:14 AM To: 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; 'policy@ietf.org' 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
- [Policy] PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Robert Moore
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Robert Moore
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Schnizlein
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John Strassner
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish
- [Policy] RE: PCELS position David McTavish