-----Original
Message-----
From: Pana,
Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:21
AM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
'David
McTavish'; Pana, Mircea;
'policy@ietf.org'
Cc: 'John
Strassner';
'Joel M.
Halpern'
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS
position
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