RE: RE: PCELS position
"Pana, Mircea" <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:12:33 -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_01C3821F.C98CC9B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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:[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_01C3821F.C98CC9B0 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> <STYLE>@font-face { font-family: Wingdings; } @font-face { font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } P.Numbered { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.8in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.Numbered { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.8in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Numbered { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.8in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } P.Bulletted { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.Bulletted { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Bulletted { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } SPAN.EmailStyle19 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I agree with John. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mircea.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=532480322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:43 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; '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><B>Importance:</B> High<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=Section1> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT> </P> <DIV> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: navy">regards,<BR>John </SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=navy size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; 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-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'David McTavish'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">; </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'Pana, Mircea'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">; </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'[email protected]'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">John Strassner</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">; </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">'Joel M. Halpern'</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 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 face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </P> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">W.r.t.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">> </SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"> of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS?</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> </SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></SPAN></FONT> </P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">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 face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">find major issues, we may advance to DS.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"></SPAN></FONT> </P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hope this helps.</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV> <DIV> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=blue size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Bert</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3821F.C98CC9B0--