|
John,
I'm not
suggesting fundamental changes to 3460, but rather minor modifications that
relax some of the stringent requirements that were introduced. My
intention is NOT to remove the new functionality added, but rather, acknowledge
the stress points of PCIMe that make it incompatible with PCIM. My
primary concern is that PCIMe has inadvertantly created a new standard, by
implying compatibility with PCIM but not achieving it. My impression that
PCIMe is supposed to be compatible was manifested by the title of the RFC, "PCIM
Extensions", which in nature would imply using PCIM as a
ground-work. Through my analysis, it is evident that PCIM and PCIMe are not
compatible, and that this issue is NOT on an implementation level, but rather in
the underlying core of the design. Going forward, if such incompatibility is
allowed to manifest, there will only be a divide in the use of either standard;
thereby making implementations incompatible on many fronts between PCIM and
PCIMe, regardless of implementation detail. In my opinion, this jeopardizes
the effort invested into either effort if they are not capable of
interaction. By not acknowledging the short-comings of the
incompatibilities between PCIM and PCIMe now, I believe we are doing a
disservice to the community and any existing adopters.
The core key issues that limit compatibility between
PCIM and PCIMe are as follows:
-
existence of priority within rules and groups needs to be optional instead of
mandatory, and allow for implied defaults
-
deprecation of classes {PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup, PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup}
instead of extending from PolicySetContainment -
renaming of data model component Repository to ReusablePolicyContainer provides
no conceivable benefit, and creates incompatibilityYou'll note
that I have no problems with the structure of PolicySet, as it appears that this
is an implementation issue (perhaps resolvable via Mircea's "inferred"
implementation idea). So, please, review the above points, and I think you
will see that these are design issues, not implementation details, and this in
fact, does create an incompatibility with PCIM.
If
compatibility with PCIM is NOT a requirement of PCIMe, then I submit that the
name of the RFC be changed from "PCIM Extensions" to "PCIM 2.0", AND, the
Abstract in RFC 3460 is modified to state up front the incompatibilities between
PCIMe and PCIM.
Regards,
d.
|