RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Title: PCELS position

However, let me add that it is probably not OK (but that is the WG chairs who

decide) to re-open issues that have been beated to dead in the past and for

which there is no new data to consider.

 

I probably should have said that with my earlier email.

 

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: David McTavish [mailto:dmctavish@sandvine.com]
Sent: maandag 22 september 2003 16:22
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; David McTavish; 'Pana, Mircea'; 'policy@ietf.org'
Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

With this knowledge, is it appropriate to push PCIMe back to the foreground and determine aspects of this document that are not congruent with PCIM?

For starters, I believe section 3.1 "How to Change an Information Model" should be re-evaluated, which could make a huge impact on the rest of the document.  I'm not against deprecation in principal, however, I don't believe that it should be considered as a primary option. From other models, deprecation is usually reserved as a last resort, and even then, is fazed in over a period of releases to allow for migration.  I don't believe that a model that is extending from an existing model should have the right to deprecate. If PCIMe, were actually PCIM 2.0, then I would better understand deprecation being used, but as it stands, I am not sure this is the correct course of action.

I'll review PCIMe document further and provide specific arguments for each section that I believe violates the principal of PCIM, and hopefully provide suggestions for discussion.

 

 

Regards,

d.

 

 

-----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