Re: [Policy] One more try for interest
"Larry S. Bartz" <lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Tue, 25 February 2003 15:33 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03514 for <policy-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:33:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1PFgSg06073 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:42:28 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFa3p04648; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:36:06 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFRlp04287 for <policy@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:27:47 -0500
Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02949 for <policy@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:18:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tias4.treas.gov (tias-gw4.treas.gov [199.196.144.14]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id h1PFM4wj024606; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:22:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from no.name.available by tias4.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 15:22:04 UT
Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-5.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PFLwT7019786; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.7.14.15]) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:58 -0500
Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mears.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFLsH06140; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:55 -0500
Message-ID: <3E5B8A12.7040804@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:54 -0500
From: "Larry S. Bartz" <lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov>
Organization: Internal Revenue Service
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
CC: policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Policy] One more try for interest
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212143410.02121ab0@mail.stevecrocker.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joel, WG, Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 02/12/2003 02:37 PM: > Well, a small number of additional people spoke up for my last note. > > Reviewing my records, I do note that 2 months ago we received > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt > > an internet draft starting on the problem of an LDAP mapping of PCIMe. > > I have seen no discussion of this draft on the list. > > If we were to get rechartered to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe, is > this the right document? The draft is a draft. If those who advocate Policy as a tool for implementing QoS want to carry PCIMe forward to a concrete LDAP implementation, they should do it. But why recharter *only* to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe? Policy has much more potential for specificity, for refinement, for extension, for applicability. This WG should be the forum to extend Policy in whatever direction it evolves. > Is this document so well put together that Ed and I should just ask the > IESG to publish to as a PS? No. It needs some work, particularly with its LDAP-isms. The ABNF which describes the information components of PCIMe is incomplete and should be conformed to the style and format defined in RFC 2252. > Has anyone other than the authors even read the document? Yes. > > Thank you, > Joel M. Halpern > > PS: Just to be clear, if there is not significant participation we will > have no choice but to close the working group. Don't close it before the PCLS comes out of the IANA oven and attains RFC status. What's up with that, anyway? What's the status of the PCLS? If the WG is closed before PCLS becomes an RFC, the WG will have exited without even offering a hint of a mechanism for implementing the Model. This would render the work which has already been accomplished practically useless from an interoperability standpoint. What's the rush to close the WG? Consider the history of this WG. Its progress has always been slower than some would have liked. Why kill it now? What has changed? Why has apparent interest in this WG withered? I have my own pet theories. THEORY 1 The withering of this WG's vitality reflects a natural consequence of the evolution of the IETF's deliberative and standards setting processes. I'm not the first to observe that the IETF's activities have come to be dominated by commercial entities, by commercial interests. If there is a market opportunity, it seems, there is potential for an RFC which can serve as a marketing tool. The upside is that commercial entities can focus financial and human resources on a problem space in ways that academic, government, and pure research sectors cannot. By the same token, when a market segment recedes, withers, or is supplanted by The Next Big Thing, then the commercially driven support for a technology initiative which has become Yesterday's Catfood (marketing-wise) withers as well. Are immediate marketability and near-term market advantage the only true measures of a technology's necessity? THEORY 2 When the work of this WG was PCIM and PCLS, the future of Policy seemed wide open. As defined in PCIM and PCLS, Policy isn't just for netheads and router jockeys. But when the WG's work narrowed to PCIMe, when the work of this WG turned to focus more explicitly on QoS issues, the interested audience narrowed commensurately; an unfortunate but natural consequence. Joel, I believe there is adequate justification for continuing this WG. Policy is bigger than QoS. If the Policy for QoS advocacy has faded or is temporarily dormant, so be it. But Policy has more to offer, and I'd like to help prove it. -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy
- [Policy] One more try for interest Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Policy] One more try for interest Larry S. Bartz
- Re: [Policy] One more try for interest Joel M. Halpern
- RE: [Policy] One more try for interest Pana, Mircea
- RE: [Policy] One more try for interest Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [Policy] One more try for interest Antoni Barba