RE: RE: PCELS position
John Strassner <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:24:36 -0600
| 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_01C38208.5357D440
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi David,
Thanks for a thoughtful response, even if my original posting wasn't
directed specifically at you. :-)
I believe that the root of the problem lies in the wording of PCIMe. I note
that in PCLS, the dreaded priority rule attribute is NOT mandatory, viz:
( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.5 NAME 'pcimRule'
DESC 'The base class for representing the "If Condition
then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'
SUP pcimPolicy
ABSTRACT
MAY ( pcimRuleName $ pcimRuleEnabled $
pcimRuleConditionListType $ pcimRuleConditionList $
pcimRuleActionList $ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList $
pcimRuleUsage $ pcimRulePriority $
pcimRuleMandatory $ pcimRuleSequencedActions $
pcimRoles )
)
Hopefully, we've already agreed that deprecation is a Bad Thing in a schema.
And I completely agree with your third issue - as a co-author of PCIMe, I
voted against this change as I couldn't understand the logic, but was out
voted. I note that this falls under the area of Bert's "don't bring it up
again".
At this point, I need to reread your thorough analyses and possibly 3460 and
3060 to see what went wrong. Although I hope that the PCELS authors will
reply before me, especially since my time is rather limited this week.
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: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: David McTavish [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:56 AM
To: 'John Strassner'; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; David McTavish; 'Pana, Mircea';
'[email protected]'
Cc: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position
John,
I'm not suggesting fundamental changes to 3460, but rather minor
modifications that relax some of the stringent requirements that were
introduced. My intention is NOT to remove the new functionality added, but
rather, acknowledge the stress points of PCIMe that make it incompatible
with PCIM. My primary concern is that PCIMe has inadvertantly created a new
standard, by implying compatibility with PCIM but not achieving it. My
impression that PCIMe is supposed to be compatible was manifested by the
title of the RFC, "PCIM Extensions", which in nature would imply using PCIM
as a ground-work. Through my analysis, it is evident that PCIM and PCIMe are
not compatible, and that this issue is NOT on an implementation level, but
rather in the underlying core of the design. Going forward, if such
incompatibility is allowed to manifest, there will only be a divide in the
use of either standard; thereby making implementations incompatible on many
fronts between PCIM and PCIMe, regardless of implementation detail. In my
opinion, this jeopardizes the effort invested into either effort if they are
not capable of interaction. By not acknowledging the short-comings of the
incompatibilities between PCIM and PCIMe now, I believe we are doing a
disservice to the community and any existing adopters.
The core key issues that limit compatibility between PCIM and PCIMe are as
follows:
- existence of priority within rules and groups needs to be optional
instead of mandatory, and allow for implied defaults
- deprecation of classes {PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup,
PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup} instead of extending from PolicySetContainment
- renaming of data model component Repository to ReusablePolicyContainer
provides no conceivable benefit, and creates incompatibility
You'll note that I have no problems with the structure of PolicySet, as it
appears that this is an implementation issue (perhaps resolvable via
Mircea's "inferred" implementation idea). So, please, review the above
points, and I think you will see that these are design issues, not
implementation details, and this in fact, does create an incompatibility
with PCIM.
If compatibility with PCIM is NOT a requirement of PCIMe, then I submit that
the name of the RFC be changed from "PCIM Extensions" to "PCIM 2.0", AND,
the Abstract in RFC 3460 is modified to state up front the incompatibilities
between PCIMe and PCIM.
Regards,
d.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:43 PM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea';
'[email protected]'
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: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:14 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_01C38208.5357D440
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<title>PCELS position</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.Numbered, li.Numbered, div.Numbered
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.8in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:200%;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.Bulletted, li.Bulletted, div.Bulletted
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:200%;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.numbered0, li.numbered0, div.numbered0
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.8in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:200%;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.bulletted0, li.bulletted0, div.bulletted0
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:1.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
line-height:200%;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.emailstyle19
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle23
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi David,</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks for a thoughtful response, even if
my original posting wasn't directed specifically at you. </span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Wingdings><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Wingdings;color:navy'>J</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I believe that the root of the problem
lies in the wording of PCIMe. I note that in PCLS, the dreaded priority rule
attribute is NOT mandatory, viz:</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.5
NAME 'pcimRule'</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
DESC 'The base class for representing the "If Condition</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.'</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
SUP pcimPolicy </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
ABSTRACT</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
MAY ( pcimRuleName $ pcimRuleEnabled $ </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
pcimRuleConditionListType $ pcimRuleConditionList $ </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
pcimRuleActionList $ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList $ </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
pcimRuleUsage $ pcimRulePriority $ </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
pcimRuleMandatory $ pcimRuleSequencedActions $ </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>
pcimRoles )</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> )</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hopefully, we've already agreed that
deprecation is a Bad Thing in a schema. And I completely agree with your third
issue - as a co-author of PCIMe, I voted against this change as I couldn't
understand the logic, but was out voted. I note that this falls under the area
of Bert's "don't bring it up again".</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>At this point, I need to reread your
thorough analyses and possibly 3460 and 3060 to see what went wrong. Although I
hope that the PCELS authors will reply before me, especially since my time is
rather limited this week.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>regards,<br>
John </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>John C. Strassner <br>
Chief Strategy Officer <br>
Intelliden Inc. <br>
90 South Cascade Avenue <br>
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 USA <br>
phone: +1.719.785.0648 <br>
fax: +1.719.785.0644 <br>
email: [email protected] </span></font></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> David McTavish
[mailto:[email protected]] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, September 23, 2003
11:56 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>'</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>John
Strassner</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>'</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; David
McTavish; </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>'Pana, Mircea'</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>; </span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>'[email protected]'</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>'Joel M.
Halpern'</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS
position</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>John,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>I'm not suggesting fundamental changes to 3460, but
rather minor modifications that relax some of the stringent requirements that
were introduced. My intention is NOT to remove the new functionality
added, but rather, acknowledge the stress points of PCIMe that make it
incompatible with PCIM. My primary concern is that PCIMe has
inadvertantly created a new standard, by implying compatibility with PCIM but
not achieving it. My impression that PCIMe is supposed to be compatible
was manifested by the title of the RFC, "PCIM Extensions", which in
nature would imply using PCIM as a ground-work. Through my analysis, it is
evident that PCIM and PCIMe are not compatible, and that this issue is NOT on
an implementation level, but rather in the underlying core of the design. Going
forward, if such incompatibility is allowed to manifest, there will only be a
divide in the use of either standard; thereby making implementations
incompatible on many fronts between PCIM and PCIMe, regardless of
implementation detail. In my opinion, this jeopardizes the effort invested
into either effort if they are not capable of interaction. By not
acknowledging the short-comings of the incompatibilities between PCIM and PCIMe
now, I believe we are doing a disservice to the community and any existing
adopters.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>The core key issues that limit compatibility between
PCIM and PCIMe are as follows:</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'> - existence of priority within rules and
groups needs to be optional instead of mandatory, and allow for implied
defaults</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'> - deprecation of classes
{PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup, PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup} instead of extending from
PolicySetContainment</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'> - renaming of data model component Repository
to ReusablePolicyContainer provides no conceivable benefit, and creates
incompatibility</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>You'll note that I have no problems with the
structure of PolicySet, as it appears that this is an implementation issue
(perhaps resolvable via Mircea's "inferred" implementation idea). So,
please, review the above points, and I think you will see that these are design
issues, not implementation details, and this in fact, does create an
incompatibility with PCIM. </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>If compatibility with PCIM is NOT a requirement of
PCIMe, then I submit that the name of the RFC be changed from "PCIM
Extensions" to "PCIM 2.0", AND, the Abstract in RFC 3460 is
modified to state up front the incompatibilities between PCIMe and PCIM.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>Regards,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New"'>d.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> John Strassner
[mailto:[email protected]]<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, September 23, 2003
12:43 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David
McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; '[email protected]'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> John Strassner; 'Joel M.
Halpern'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS
position<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Importance:</span></b> High</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>regards,<br>
John </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>John C. Strassner <br>
Chief Strategy Officer <br>
Intelliden Inc. <br>
90 South Cascade Avenue <br>
Colorado Springs, CO 80906 USA <br>
phone: +1.719.785.0648 <br>
fax: +1.719.785.0644 <br>
email: [email protected] </span></font></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[mailto:[email protected]] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, September 21, 2003
4:14 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'David McTavish'; 'Pana,
Mircea'; '[email protected]'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M.
Halpern'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS
position</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>W.r.t.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>> </span></font><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Is
PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such</span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>> </span></font><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>modification
could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires</span></font><font
size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>></span></font><font size=2
face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'> of
maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS?</span></font><font size=2
color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:blue'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for
example because of this effort to try and MAP it onto LDAP, we</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>find that we did some things in PCIMe that
we should not have done, then, with WG consensus,</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>we can make incompatible changes to
PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>That is part of the normal standars track
process. That is, we get something to PS, then we start</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>using/implementing (the "using"
part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>other docs we did in Policy, and like the
IPsec work, the "implementing" is sort of mapping onto for </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>example LDAP I think)... and if we find
major issues, then we fix and recycle at PS. If we do not</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>find major issues, we may advance to DS.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Hope this helps.</span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=blue face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Bert</span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C38208.5357D440--