RE: RE: PCELS position
David McTavish <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:21:49 -0400
| 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_01C38114.DC3A1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" With this knowledge, is it appropriate to push PCIMe back to the foreground and determine aspects of this document that are not congruent with PCIM? For starters, I believe section 3.1 "How to Change an Information Model" should be re-evaluated, which could make a huge impact on the rest of the document. I'm not against deprecation in principal, however, I don't believe that it should be considered as a primary option. From other models, deprecation is usually reserved as a last resort, and even then, is fazed in over a period of releases to allow for migration. I don't believe that a model that is extending from an existing model should have the right to deprecate. If PCIMe, were actually PCIM 2.0, then I would better understand deprecation being used, but as it stands, I am not sure this is the correct course of action. I'll review PCIMe document further and provide specific arguments for each section that I believe violates the principal of PCIM, and hopefully provide suggestions for discussion. Regards, d. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:14 AM To: 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; '[email protected]' 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 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38114.DC3A1970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>PCELS position</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>With this knowledge, is it appropriate to push PCIMe back to the foreground and determine aspects of this document that are not congruent with PCIM?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>For starters, I believe section 3.1 "How to Change an Information Model" should be re-evaluated, which could make a huge impact on the rest of the document. I'm not against deprecation in principal, however, I don't believe that it should be considered as a primary option. From other models, deprecation is usually reserved as a last resort, and even then, is fazed in over a period of releases to allow for migration. I don't believe that a model that is extending from an existing model should have the right to deprecate. If PCIMe, were actually PCIM 2.0, then I would better understand deprecation being used, but as it stands, I am not sure this is the correct course of action.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I'll review PCIMe document further and provide specific arguments for each section that I believe violates the principal of PCIM, and hopefully provide suggestions for discussion.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003></SPAN><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>d.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003></SPAN><SPAN class=600315013-22092003></SPAN><SPAN class=600315013-22092003></SPAN><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=600315013-22092003><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:14 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; '[email protected]'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M. Halpern'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>W.r.t.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>> </FONT></SPAN>Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>> </FONT></SPAN>modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>></FONT> </SPAN>of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS?<SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for example because of this effort to try and MAP it onto LDAP, we</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>find that we did some things in PCIMe that we should not have done, then, with WG consensus,</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>That is part of the normal standars track process. That is, we get something to PS, then we start</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>other docs we did in Policy, and like the IPsec work, the "implementing" is sort of mapping onto for </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>example LDAP I think)... and if we find major issues, then we fix and recycle at PS. If we do not</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>find major issues, we may advance to DS.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003></SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>Hope this helps.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=814564302-20092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=353231010-21092003>Bert</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38114.DC3A1970--