Subject: Re: Policy Framework Core Information Model -- Version 1

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 03:00:51 -0500

Jon,

>.....
>What policy keywords or roles are appropriate for these policies?  Where
>does the definition of HTTP, paying_cutomers, FTP, etc. fit into the
>repository or do they (I think I remember one incarnation of this draft or
>the LDAP schema that sort of addressed this)?  Can some one enlighten me!

The term "roles" as we were using them in PCIM, had to do with identifying
the policies by what resources they applied to....please see my other post on
the question of roles. The identification of the traffic streams is done via
the conditions part of the policy rules.  If you have modeled objects that
characterize these conditions, you can link to them using the
ConditionSubject and ConditionTarget associations.  I expect there will be
more on this topic in subsequent QOS submissions to this list.

>Usage of the CIM notation seems to add to the complexity of the problem
>domain and to the complexity of this draft....
>Given that our intended protocol is LDAP, is there enough
>value to the CIM notation to use it instead of some other more robust OO
>representation (UML, Shlear-Mellor, etc.)?
>...

The CIM notation is, indeed, UML, with some added conventions.  If we did
not use CIM, we would have to invent a bunch of conventions to use for applying
UML to this problem space.  Why not use a bunch of conventions that have already
been formulated and exercised?  CIM is repository-independent, and that's what
we wanted.  That leaves us free to use an LDAP-accessible repository now, and
something else later.  Anyway, I don't think it's worth re-doing the
draft to make it non-CIM UML.  We would have to anticipate the problems that
CIM has already addressed. Sure, with the advantage of hindsight, we might be
able to invent a better set of conventions, but I don't think that is what we
want to spend our time on in this working group.  (There is also value, I think,
in being able to easily link to other CIM-based models that can take advantage
of our policy model.)

Ed

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:07:26 -0500

I am forwarding following note for John Strassner.

Ed