RE: RE: PCELS position
"Pana, Mircea" <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:44:45 -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_01C38224.48FD76F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have probably not expressed myself clearly. My intent was to highlight a few areas where PCELS has difficulty mapping PCIMe in a manner that would be compatible with PCLS. Further I crafted an interpretation (in lack of better wording) of the model that, if applied to the LDAP mapping, would alleviate the problem. I was not trying to challenge the model but to find the right interpretation (or compromise I should say). Regards, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:03 PM To: 'Pana, Mircea'; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David McTavish'; '[email protected]' Cc: John Strassner; 'Joel M. Halpern' Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Again, you are trying to determine the validity of an information model based on the concerns of one specific data model. This is backwards. Furthermore, the argument that you are "reusing" an attribute foo in a new class bar is completely specious, because the new class bar is different than the original class baz that defined foo. The differences are very fundamental - different hierarchies, different attributes, and worse (e.g., the definition of priority). This isn't reuse, this is simply stealing an OID. So, how about defining a NEW set of classes and attributes? And if you prefixes the new classes and attributes, this would also get around the schema problem that I stated earlier. 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: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:21 AM To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David McTavish'; Pana, Mircea; '[email protected]' Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M. Halpern' Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position Maybe there is no need for such drastic measures. Maybe it is only a matter of interpretation of the PCIMe recommendations. After all PCIMe is quite lenient wrt. that is and what is not used in submodels (see PCIMe section 5.10.). Some of the structural changes proposed by PCIMe make it difficult for PCELS to be interoperable with PCLS. These are as follows: 1. PCIMe defines a new abstract class, PolicySet, and makes it a superclass of the already defined PolicyRule and PolicyGroup 2. In PCIMe the PolicyRule.Priority property has been deprecated in favor of a new relative priority mechanism. 3. PolicyRepository is deprecated in favor of the new ReusablePolicyContainer. PCELS could be interoperable with PCLS if it was to interpret these PCIMe changes as follows: A. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the abstract PolicySet. (see also B.) B. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the modified PolicyGroup. Implementations can use (the equivalent of) a PolicyRule with no Actions or Conditions for PolicyGroup objects. C. implementations SHOULD (as opposed to MUST) use the relative priority mechanism instead of the absolute priority attribute of PolicyRule D. PolicyRepository SHOULD not be used directly but it is acceptable for instances of this class to occur through inheritance. So, the question is whether the statements A. through D. violate PCIMe or not. Opinions? Thanks, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [ mailto:[email protected] <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_01C38224.48FD76F0 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>RE: [Policy] RE: 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: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: blue; 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.EmailStyle20 { COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } OL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-US vLink=blue link=blue> <DIV><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I have probably not expressed myself clearly.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> My intent was to </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>highlight a few areas where PCELS has difficulty mapping PCIMe in a manner that would be compatible with PCLS. Further I crafted an interpretation (in lack of better wording) of the model that, if applied to the LDAP mapping, would alleviate the problem. I was not trying to challenge the model but to find the right interpretation (or compromise I should say).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=492563322-23092003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mircea.</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 1:03 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Pana, Mircea'; 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'David McTavish'; '[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 class=Section1> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Again, you are trying to determine the validity of an information model based on the concerns of one specific data model. This is backwards.</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> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Furthermore, the argument that you are "reusing" an attribute foo in a new class bar is completely specious, because the new class bar is <I><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">different</SPAN></I> than the original class baz that defined foo. The differences are very fundamental - different hierarchies, different attributes, and worse (e.g., the definition of priority). This isn't reuse, this is simply stealing an OID.</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> <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">So, how about defining a NEW set of classes and attributes? And if you prefixes the new classes and attributes, this would also get around the schema problem that I stated earlier. </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> Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Monday, September 22, 2003 8:21 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; </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">; Pana, Mircea; </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> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Maybe there is no need for such drastic measures. Maybe it is only a matter of interpretation of the PCIMe recommendations. After all PCIMe is quite lenient wrt. that is and what is not used in submodels (see PCIMe section 5.10.).</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Some of the structural changes proposed by PCIMe make it difficult for PCELS to be interoperable with PCLS. These are as follows:</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">1. PCIMe defines a new abstract class, PolicySet, and makes it a superclass of the already defined PolicyRule and PolicyGroup</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">2. In PCIMe the PolicyRule.Priority property has been deprecated in favor of a new relative priority mechanism.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">3. PolicyRepository is deprecated in favor of the new ReusablePolicyContainer.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">PCELS could be interoperable with PCLS if it was to interpret these PCIMe changes as follows:</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">A. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the abstract PolicySet. (see also B.)</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">B. there is no need to have an explicit LDAP mapping of the modified PolicyGroup. Implementations can use (the equivalent of) a PolicyRule with no Actions or Conditions for PolicyGroup objects.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">C. implementations SHOULD (as opposed to MUST) use the relative priority mechanism instead of the absolute priority attribute of PolicyRule</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">D. PolicyRepository SHOULD not be used directly but it is acceptable for instances of this class to occur through inheritance.</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">So, the question is whether the statements A. through D. violate PCIMe or not. Opinions?</SPAN></FONT> </P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks,</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Mircea.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----Original Message-----</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [<A href="mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:14 AM</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To: 'David McTavish'; 'Pana, Mircea'; '[email protected]'</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'Joel M. Halpern'</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject: 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> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">W.r.t.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such </SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires </SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> of maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS? </SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">PCIMe is at Proposed Standard. If, for example because of this effort to try and MAP it onto LDAP, we</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">find that we did some things in PCIMe that we should not have done, then, with WG consensus,</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">we can make incompatible changes to PCIMe and then recycle at Proposed Standard.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">That is part of the normal standars track process. That is, we get something to PS, then we start</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">using/implementing (the "using" part is reusing PCIMe definitions in otehr CIM docs (like the</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">other docs we did in Policy, and like the IPsec work, the "implementing" is sort of mapping onto for </SPAN></FONT><BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">example LDAP I think)... and if we find major issues, then we fix and recycle at PS. If we do not</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">find major issues, we may advance to DS.</SPAN></FONT> </P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hope this helps.</SPAN></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Bert</SPAN></FONT> </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C38224.48FD76F0--