RE: RE: PCLS classes deprecated in PCELS

I have to agree with Ryan, Larry and David. I find the notion of deprecation
in PCELS unfortunate and technically NOT a good idea. I agree with Ryan's
points on this email, and could add even more, but see that as beating a
dead horse.

With respect to the two questions asked:

  1) PCLS should, in my opinion, be completed as a standards
     track document
  2) An extension document, by definition, further refines the
     original document. It does not fold, spindle, and mutilate
     the original document. IF there are fundamental reasons
     why the original document cannot be extended, then the 
     problem should be corrected in the original document, NOT
     by building an incompatible new document.
  3) Thus, I agree with Ryan: when PCELS starts deprecating 
     PCLS classes or changing the PCLS objectclass tree, then
     it is changing PCLS and it is impossible to then say that
     PCELS is an **extension** of PCLS.

regards,
John

John C. Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Inc.
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA
phone:  +1.791.785.0648
  fax:     +1.719.785.0644
email:    [email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Moats [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: Joel M. Halpern
> Cc: Larry S. Bartz; Pana, Mircea; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Re: [Policy] RE: PCLS classes deprecated in PCELS
> 
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:56:51AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> | I think that there really are two separate questions.
> | 1) Should PCLS be completed as a standards track RFC?  As far as
> I know,
> | everyone agrees that the answer to that is yes.
> 
> I certainly hope so...
> 
> | 2) How should PCIMe be mapped to LDAP?  My concern is taht you
> and others
> | are holding that mapping up to a standard of PCLS compatibility
> that PCIMe
> | itself does not meet.  I may be mistaken, but I believe that the
> | differences between PCIMe and PCIM are such that it is at best
> extremely
> | difficult (and quite possibly impossible) to accurately map PCIMe
> to LDAP
> | in a fashion compatible with PCLS.  My feeling is that concerns
> about PCELS
> | should be in the context of support for PCIMe, not in the context
> of
> | support for PCIM without PCIMe.
> 
> When PCELS starts deprecating PCLS classes or changing the
> objectclass tree of
> PCLS objects then its changing PCLS. That's why I've been asking
> for textual
> words and having PCELS classes inherit from PCLS classes (rather
> than the
> other was around), so that PCELS could be discussed in terms of
> PCIMe and
> not PCIM as PCLS is left intact.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy