Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-03.txt

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 00 10:40:09 CET

Ref:  Your note of Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:42:25 -0500

Subject: Re:   WG Last Call: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-03.txt

John writes:
>
> An architectural diagram diagram is included in this draft proposed for
> standards track despite the controversy that has delayed progress on a
> framework document. Would passing "last call" on this document imply
> approval of the archicture we have not agreed on in the framework?
>
Do you mean the diagram on page 15 (i.e. figure 4)?
I think that we do not need to mandate such architecture in a
"Core Information Model" document. We could change the text
to say that "A Policy Framework" or "A Policy System" or
"A policy Infrastructure" "can then be made responsible for
configuring.... "
The figure can then be stated to be an example of how such a
Framework could look in practice, without mandating that it needs
to be done that way. The information model I think can be specified
architecture independent. Also, for the Information model, it
should not be important if we distinguish between PDP/PEP or
what names we give to those functional blocks.

> As a related question, what happened to the apparent consensus of the
> room that we should agree on terms, policy use cases, and requirements
> before progressing a model that supposedly addresses them?
>
Those terms that we need to agree on, we need to agree on.
Clearly the discussion about "Roles" is part of that. Once we decide,
that can go into the polterm work.
I am not sure if we indeed need to agree on use cases before we can
define the PCIM. The sooner we have those defined and agreed upon,
the better. But again, I would hope that the core info model can
be done independent of use cases. If we turn out to create dependencies
(i.e. normative references), then the core info model document will
have to wait for publication untill the other docs are ready.

On the other hand, I would think that the Framework
or Architecture are quite dependent on use-cases and/or vice versa.

W.r.t. the requirements as we are defining them in confmgt mailing
list, those requirements are generic for "Configuration Management".
We should measure the Policy Framework/Architecture against the
document that confmgt will produce.

In any event, let us at least try to get WG consensus on this
document. If we cannot get consensus on the complete doc, let us
then try to produce a list of "open issues" that need to be
resolved before we can reach consensus. If such a list indeed
matures, I would then like to see an appendix in the doc that
lists the issues and dependencies. We can then try to go on to
the next document (uses cases, framework, terminology, schema,
whichever we choose) and see how far we get there.
If we keep postponing decisions and consensus forming because
of dependencies on other docs, then we never get anywhere, and
then you ADs may get fed up with the WG and.... oh well.

We MUST start moving closer to the end, not just farther from
the beginning.

Bert

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:24:41 -0500

>Do you mean the diagram on page 15 (i.e. figure 4)?

Yes, and I agree that rephrasing this as just an example of how the
information model might be implemented would work.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:06:13 -0500

I am forwarding this to the list for John Strassner.

Ed