[Policy] RE: PCELS position

[David McTavish <dmctavish@sandvine.com>]

Title: PCELS position

Opening the box a little further, is it still possible to provide feedback to PCIMe so that its original intent can be maintained, while preserving option #1? It seems that the work so far in PCELS is correct in relation to the PCIMe proposal, and perhaps the schema changes that we are debating should in fact be taken to a higher level.

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?

 

d.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:34 PM
To: 'policy@ietf.org'
Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'David McTavish'; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: PCELS position

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.