PCELS position

"Pana, Mircea" <[email protected]> Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:33:33 -0500
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.policy
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C37EF5.ACFB1810
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

After having read so many arguments on the position of PCELS relative to
PCLS I've come to the conclusion that people wish PCELS to be either a fully
interoperable extension of PCLS or a stand-alone policy schema. At the same
time the main goal of PCELS was to implement PCIMe (as an increment of
PCIM).

Based on these facts, I can see three major options (and perhaps a lot of
variations):
1. If PCELS ignores or alters some of the PCIMe recommendations, then it can
be fully interoperable with PCLS.
2. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe it must at the minimum define
replacement for a couple of the schema items defined by PCLS.
3. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe and stand-alone (i.e. no
dependency on PCLS), it would need to redefine many (otherwise re-usable)
PCLS schema items.

So, my question to the group is: of the three options above, which one do
you like the most (or find the easiest to live with)?

Joel, is #1 a viable option?

Thank you,
Mircea.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C37EF5.ACFB1810
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>PCELS position</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>After having read so many arguments on the position =
of PCELS relative to PCLS I've come to the conclusion that people wish =
PCELS to be either a fully interoperable extension of PCLS or a =
stand-alone policy schema. At the same time the main goal of PCELS was =
to implement PCIMe (as an increment of PCIM).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Based on these facts, I can see three major options =
(and perhaps a lot of variations):</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. If PCELS ignores or alters some of the PCIMe =
recommendations, then it can be fully interoperable with PCLS.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe it =
must at the minimum define replacement for a couple of the schema items =
defined by PCLS.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>3. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe and =
stand-alone (i.e. no dependency on PCLS), it would need to redefine =
many (otherwise re-usable) PCLS schema items.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So, my question to the group is: of the three options =
above, which one do you like the most (or find the easiest to live =
with)?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Joel, is #1 a viable option?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thank you,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Mircea.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C37EF5.ACFB1810--