RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

Title: PCELS position

I agree with John. The mapping of an information model to a data model has its own chalenges and the chalenges will be different from one technology to an other. That does not mean that we have to revisit the model each time.

I am not trying to say that PCIMe is perfect and that it should never be revisited, but I do not see (so far) enough reasons for re-opening such discussions.

Regards,

Mircea.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Strassner [mailto:John.Strassner@intelliden.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:43 PM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; 'policy@ietf.org'
Cc: John Strassner; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position
Importance: High

I fundamentally disagree with rebuilding RFC 3460, which is an INFORMATION MODEL, because of DATA MODEL concerns. That is exactly backwards, because it ensures that the information model cannot be mapped to other types of data models.

regards,
John

John C. Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Inc.
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
fax: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:14 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