From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 1 12:18:13 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08412 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA30694; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:13:51 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA19810; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:13:51 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA49284; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:48:41 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51310; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:48:37 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id LAA27308 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:48:42 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id LAA49360 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:48:41 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 85256895.005C5B6C ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:48:47 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <85256895.005C510F.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:44:15 -0500 Subject: RE: Why is there no week of month facility in policyTimePeriodCon ditionAuxClass? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id MAA08412 > More clearly understandable may be the business case for: > >        The first weekday of a month > > I think this would entail an evaluation such as: > >        ((day = Monday) AND (monthdate <=3)) OR > ((Tuesday <= day <= Friday) AND (monthdate = 1)) > >Is there any way of expressing and evaluating this using >the standard attributes? Yes, but it will require two instances of the PolicyTimePeriodCondition class (which are ORed together): PtpCondition1: DayOfWeekMask = { Monday } DayOfMonthMask = { 1,2,3 } PtpCondition2: DayOfWeekMask = { Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday } DayOfMonthMask = { 1 } Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Mar 3 06:23:27 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA22390 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:23:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id GAA20042; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:19:25 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id GAA34592; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:19:24 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA07768; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:55:46 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA23120; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:55:43 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id FAA35528 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:55:46 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id FAA20390 for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:55:38 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Fri, 03 Mar 00 11:06:20 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by bjex1.bj.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:34 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECADF@bjex1.bj.co.uk> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Why is there no week of month facility in policyTimePeriodCon ditionAuxClass? Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:23 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14A1432623168-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF84FF.234F5C96" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF84FF.234F5C96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > More clearly understandable may be the business case for: > > The first weekday of a month > > I think this would entail an evaluation such as: > > ((day = Monday) AND (monthdate <=3)) OR > ((Tuesday <= day <= Friday) AND (monthdate = 1)) > >Is there any way of expressing and evaluating this using >the standard attributes? > Yes, but it will require two instances of the PolicyTimePeriodCondition class (which are ORed together): < In an application that doesn't expose individual time period conditions that may be a solution, but I can't help feeling it would be very difficult to present in a usable manner to a user. However, in our application we want to expose each time period condition to the user, so having 2 conditions for what a user perceives as 1 condition isn't an option. Does anyone have any thoughts on extending the schema class definition to allow these real-world business periods to be expressed in a single condition object? David Lowndes ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF84FF.234F5C96 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Why is there no week of month facility in = policyTimePeriodCon ditionAuxClass?

> More clearly understandable may be the business = case for:
>
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 The first weekday of a = month
>
> I think this would entail an evaluation such = as:
>
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ((day =3D Monday) AND = (monthdate <=3D3)) OR
>         = ((Tuesday <=3D day <=3D Friday) AND (monthdate =3D 1))
>
>Is there any way of expressing and evaluating = this using
>the standard attributes?

> Yes, but it will require two instances of = the
PolicyTimePeriodCondition class (which are ORed = together):
<

In an application that doesn't expose individual time = period conditions that may be a solution, but I can't help feeling it = would be very difficult to present in a usable manner to a = user.

However, in our application we want to expose each = time period condition to the user, so having 2 conditions for what a = user perceives as 1 condition isn't an option.


Does anyone have any thoughts on extending the schema = class definition to allow these real-world business periods to be = expressed in a single condition object?

David Lowndes

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF84FF.234F5C96-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 7 09:41:01 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12991 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA23592; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:36:20 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA34342; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:36:18 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA42990; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:07:25 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA46802; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:07:20 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA25652 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:07:22 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id JAA26800 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:07:17 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Tue, 07 Mar 00 14:17:36 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by bjex1.bj.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:07:56 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAE6@bjex1.bj.co.uk> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midni ght Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:07:55 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14DBD00A40524-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF883E.88F4349E" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF883E.88F4349E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-03 document says this: When a range spans midnight, it by definition includes parts of two successive days. When one of these days is also selected by either the MonthOfYearMask, DayOfMonthMask, and/or DayOfWeekMask, but the other day is not, then the policy is active only during the portion of the range that falls on the selected day. For example, if the range extends from 2100 until 0800, and the day of week mask selects Monday and Tuesday, then the policy is active during the following three intervals: From midnight Sunday until 0800 Monday; From 2100 Monday until 0800 Tuesday; From 2100 Tuesday until 23:59:59 Tuesday. This is a logical interpretation of the underlying attributes. However it's not necessarily a logical interpretation for someone who has to enter and maintain this data. I should add that we have a 50:50 split in the interpretation of this in-house. We all agree that the proposed standard is the simple way of interpreting the underlying data, but half of us feel that it's misleading from a user's perspective. Given a slightly simpler example, to allow a policy to start on a Saturday at 22:00 and finish on the Sunday at 4:00, a normal user would expect that entering 2 items: a day mask of Saturday, and a time range of 220000:040000 would fully specify the range. After all, surely that is why you've allowed times to span midnight? Under the proposed standard interpretation this will actually mean that the example policy is valid on 2 discontinuous time periods: An unwanted period: Saturday 000000:040000 A wanted period: Saturday 220000:235959 Furthermore, to obtain the user's required time period they have to specify 2 periods: Saturday 220000:235959 and Sunday 000000:040000, which is rather long-winded and not particularly intuitive. If this is case, we can't see the point in allowing times to span midnight. You could argue that it's not the standard's responsibility to be concerned with user-interface issues. However, if the standard makes it impossible to convey users intentions in an unambiguous manner, then we think it is a matter of some concern. Any thoughts? David Lowndes ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF883E.88F4349E Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning = midnight

The draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-03 document = says this:

   When a range spans midnight, it by = definition includes parts of two
   successive days.  When one of = these days is also selected by either
   the MonthOfYearMask, DayOfMonthMask, = and/or DayOfWeekMask, but the
   other day is not, then the policy is = active only during the portion of
   the range that falls on the selected = day.  For example, if the range
   extends from 2100 until 0800, and the = day of week mask selects Monday
   and Tuesday, then the policy is active = during the following three
   intervals:

       From midnight = Sunday until 0800 Monday;
       From 2100 = Monday until 0800 Tuesday;
       From 2100 = Tuesday until 23:59:59 Tuesday.

This is a logical interpretation of the underlying = attributes. However it's not necessarily a logical interpretation for = someone who has to enter and maintain this data.

I should add that we have a 50:50 split in the = interpretation of this in-house. We all agree that the proposed = standard is the simple way of interpreting the underlying data, but = half of us feel that it's misleading from a user's = perspective.

Given a slightly simpler example, to allow a policy = to start on a Saturday at 22:00 and finish on the Sunday at 4:00, a = normal user would expect that entering 2 items: a day mask of Saturday, = and a time range of 220000:040000 would fully specify the range. After = all, surely that is why you've allowed times to span = midnight?

Under the proposed standard interpretation this will = actually mean that the example policy is valid on 2 discontinuous time = periods:

An unwanted period:     Saturday = 000000:040000
A wanted = period:        =         Saturday = 220000:235959

Furthermore, to obtain the user's required time = period they have to specify 2 periods: Saturday 220000:235959 and = Sunday 000000:040000, which is rather long-winded and not particularly = intuitive. If this is case, we can't see the point in allowing times to = span midnight.

You could argue that it's not the standard's = responsibility to be concerned with user-interface issues. However, if = the standard makes it impossible to convey users intentions in an = unambiguous manner, then we think it is a matter of some = concern.

Any thoughts?

David Lowndes

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF883E.88F4349E-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 7 10:29:42 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24128 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:29:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA17210; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:26:28 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA25594; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:26:27 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA55760; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:00:29 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA50114; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:00:25 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA34254 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:00:28 -0500 Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.224.210]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA30870 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:00:25 -0500 Received: from jschnizl1-pc.cisco.com (jschnizl-isdn1.cisco.com [171.68.12.74]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id GAA09262; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:59:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000307095507.00b74670@diablo.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 09:59:05 -0500 To: "David Lowndes" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: John Schnizlein Subject: Re: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midni ght In-Reply-To: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAE6@bjex1.bj.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Schnizlein David, How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this? Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG? John At 02:07 PM 03/07/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote: >... >Given a slightly simpler example, to allow a policy to start on a Saturday >at 22:00 and finish on the Sunday at 4:00, a normal user would expect that >entering 2 items: a day mask of Saturday, and a time range of 220000:040000 >would fully specify the range. After all, surely that is why you've allowed >times to span midnight? > >Under the proposed standard interpretation this will actually mean that the >example policy is valid on 2 discontinuous time periods: > >An unwanted period: Saturday 000000:040000 >A wanted period: Saturday 220000:235959 > >Furthermore, to obtain the user's required time period they have to specify >2 periods: Saturday 220000:235959 and Sunday 000000:040000, which is rather >long-winded and not particularly intuitive. If this is case, we can't see >the point in allowing times to span midnight. > >You could argue that it's not the standard's responsibility to be concerned >with user-interface issues. However, if the standard makes it impossible to >convey users intentions in an unambiguous manner, then we think it is a >matter of some concern. From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 7 10:51:23 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29140 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA23044; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:48:02 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA30796; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:48:03 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA36726; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:22:47 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA46404; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:22:41 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA30052 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:22:43 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id KAA24696 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:10:21 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Tue, 07 Mar 00 15:20:53 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by bjex1.bj.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:04:48 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAE7@bjex1.bj.co.uk> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning m idni ght Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:04:47 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14DBC1DF41008-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8846.7ACCCD56" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8846.7ACCCD56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this? Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG? < John, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have any document references that I can look at? Dave ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8846.7ACCCD56 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midni ght

>How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this?
Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than
specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG?
<

John,

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have any document references that I can look at?

Dave

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8846.7ACCCD56-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 7 14:46:23 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18370 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:46:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id OAA23724; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:43:20 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id OAA28678; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:43:21 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA40026; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:20:15 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA32788; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:20:07 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id OAA23482 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:20:10 -0500 Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.224.210]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id OAA24308 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:20:07 -0500 Received: from jschnizl1-pc.cisco.com (jschnizl-isdn1.cisco.com [171.68.12.74]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id LAA09392; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:19:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000307141700.00b74100@diablo.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 14:18:59 -0500 To: "David Lowndes" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: John Schnizlein Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning m idni ght In-Reply-To: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAE7@bjex1.bj.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Schnizlein I am sorry I forgot to include the pointer to that WG's page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html At 03:04 PM 03/07/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote: > >>How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this? >>Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than >>specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG? >> >>John, > >I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have >any document references that I can look at? > >Dave From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 8 10:56:18 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29046 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA31096; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:53:10 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA24896; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:53:09 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52548; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:22:15 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52522; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:22:10 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA29236 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:22:13 -0500 Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA26502 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:22:07 -0500 Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12SiHk-0005TL-00 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 15:22:04 +0000 Received: from modem-88.arizona.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.54.88] helo=KOSH) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12SiHj-0007T3-00 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 15:22:04 +0000 From: "David Lowndes" To: Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midnight Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:20:30 -0000 Message-Id: <000a01bf8912$3a5dddb0$0100a8c0@KOSH> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000307141700.00b74100@diablo.cisco.com> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, Just so we're talking about the same things, are you referring to RFC2445 "4.8.2 Date and Time Component Properties"? If it is, what in particular (if anything) were you thinking of being able to re-use? Dave -----Original Message----- From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com [mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of John Schnizlein Sent: 07 March 2000 19:19 To: David Lowndes; policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanningm idni ght I am sorry I forgot to include the pointer to that WG's page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html At 03:04 PM 03/07/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote: > >>How does the Calendar and Scheduling WG deal with issues like this? >>Would you be satisfied if we followed their lead rather than >>specifying schedule semantics in the policy WG? >> >>John, > >I'm afraid I'm not familiar with those areas, do you have >any document references that I can look at? > >Dave From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 8 12:32:58 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03563 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA24318; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:29:51 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA29898; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:29:52 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57264; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:01:27 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA39066; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:01:24 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id MAA26308 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:01:28 -0500 Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.224.210]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA28360 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 12:01:24 -0500 Received: from jschnizl1-pc.cisco.com (jschnizl-isdn1.cisco.com [171.68.12.74]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id JAA29991; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:00:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000308111154.00a12100@diablo.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:18:58 -0500 To: "David Lowndes" , From: John Schnizlein Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midnight In-Reply-To: <000a01bf8912$3a5dddb0$0100a8c0@KOSH> References: <4.1.20000307141700.00b74100@diablo.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Schnizlein At 03:20 PM 03/08/2000 +0000, David Lowndes wrote: > >Just so we're talking about the same things, are you referring >to RFC2445 "4.8.2 Date and Time Component Properties"? Yes, but the WG continues to address scheduling issues. >If it is, what in particular (if anything) were you >thinking of being able to re-use? My view is that the Policy Framework WG should not specify any schedule format or semantics that conflict with what the WG with the lead on this subject is specifying. Pointing to the specifications that are already on Standards track is better than re-using them. If schedule semantics are not clear, or new formats would be advised, they should be proposed in that WG. Otherwise we risk creating multiple specifications which might conflict in obvious or subtle ways, between the multiple WGs. >>http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Thu Mar 9 12:08:12 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11254 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:08:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA33976; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA33122; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:05:04 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51900; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:37:22 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA45492; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:37:19 -0500 Received: from corp.tivoli.com (corp.tivoli.com [146.84.104.1]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id LAA29346 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:37:18 -0500 From: Ed_Ellesson@tivoli.com Received: from tivmta4.tivoli.com (tivmta4.tivoli.com [146.84.104.47]) by corp.tivoli.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA23606 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 10:37:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by tivmta4.tivoli.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 8625689D.004DD1E1 ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 08:10:00 -0600 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: TIVOLI SYSTEMS To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <8625689D.004DD199.00@tivmta4.tivoli.com> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:34:08 -0500 Subject: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ed_Ellesson@tivoli.com A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Policy Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : QoS Policy Schema Author(s) : Y. Snir, Y. Ramberg, J. Strassner, R. Cohen Filename : draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Pages : 51 Date : 08-Mar-00 This document takes as its starting point the object-oriented information model for representing QoS policy information currently under development in the IETF's Policy Framework working group. The IETF document defining this information model is the 'QoS Policy Information Model' [QOSIM]. This document defines the LDAP representation of the classes as defined in [QOSIM] and discusses LDAP related issues regarding the implementation of such a schema. The QoS Policy schema refines the concepts in the Policy Framework Core Information Model [PCIM] and Schema [PFSCHEMA] documents in order to extend the generalized policy model to represent network Quality of Service (QoS) policy information. Specifically, this draft refines the concept of generic policy rules, conditions and actions to cover extensions necessary for representing policies to control the configuration and management of RSVP and Differentiated Services. This information is typically used by QoS Policy Servers to configure network devices according to prescribed QoS Policies. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20000308144423.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20000308144423.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Mar 10 12:48:29 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06222 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:48:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA06472; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:44:59 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA25872; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:44:58 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA27448; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:31:49 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA53808; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:31:46 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id LAA28976 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:31:47 -0500 Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (ckmso1.att.com [12.20.58.69]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA34008 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:31:44 -0500 Received: from qsun.mt.att.com ([135.16.157.16]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-2.2) with SMTP id LAA07254; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:31:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from schooner.local.windrose.omaha.ne.us by qsun.mt.att.com (SMI-8.6/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id LAA25642; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:30:46 -0500 From: "Ryan Moats" To: "Ron Cohen (E-mail)" , "John Strassner" , "Yoram Ramberg" , "Yoram Snir" Cc: "Policy Mailing List" Subject: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:29:48 -0600 Message-Id: <000c01bf8aad$da037c20$e3c8090a@schooner.local.windrose.omaha.ne.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Ryan Moats" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Attached is the promised ABNF for the schema draft. I still need to do ABNF for the IM draft, which will be under separate cover (and I'll aim for end of next week). This ABNF needs OID assignment at some point, right now the OIDs are indicated by <...> placeholders. Ryan Some problems/issues I noted: 1. In sections 8.6, 8.7, and 8.12; you can only attach auxiliary classes to a structural class, so I ignored the auxiliary class line. Let me know if these are actually structural classes. 2. In section 8.6.1 why is the attribute multi-valued? 3. In general, why are you breaking the convention that auxiliary classes end in auxclass? 4. Attribute definitions are global in LDAP. Thus the following sections were removed (I did not renumber for clarity with the -00 draft): 8.7.1, 8.7.7, 8.7.8, and 8.7.9 5. In 8.21.2, Equality needs to be caseIgnoreIA5Match 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. 7. In 8.25, this method of tagging won't work if the directory implementation doesn't record the object class. You should consider adding an attribute. =======ABNF 8.4. Class qosPolicyDomain ( NAME 'qosPolicyDomain' DESC 'A class that is the root of an administrative QoS policy domain, which resides in the policyGroup container. It contains a group of named policy containers.' SUP policyGroup MAY ( qpDomainName $ qpPHBSet ) ) ( NAME 'qosPolicyDomain' DESC 'Auxiliary classes that may be attached' AUX ( policyGroupContainmentAuxClass $ policyRuleContainmentAuxClass $ policyElementAuxClass $ qosPolicyElementAuxClass ) ) 8.4.1. The Attribute qpDomainName ( NAME 'qpDomainName' DESC 'A user-friendly name of the QoS policy domain.' SYNTAX IA5String SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY CaseExactIA5Match ) 8.4.2. The Attribute qpPHBSet ( NAME 'qpPHBSet' DESC 'DN reference to the PHB set defined for the domain.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.5. Class qosNamedPolicyContainer ( NAME 'qosNamedPolicyContainer' DESC 'A class that is a logical and physical container of policies.' SUP policyGroup MUST ( qpPriority $ qpPolicyRuleMatchMethod ) ) ( NAME 'qosNamedPolicyContainer' DESC 'Auxiliary classes that may be attached' AUX ( policyRuleContainmentAuxClass $ policyElementAuxClass $ qosPolicyElementAuxClass ) ) 8.5.1. The Attribute qpPriority ( NAME 'qpPriority' DESC 'The priority of a named group of rules in one qosPolicyNamedContainer instance compared to other qosPolicyNamedContainer instances. If two or more qosPolicyNamedContainer objects have the same priority, this means that the order between these containers is of no importance, but that they must each be evaluated before other objects that have a numerically lower priority.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.5.2. The Attribute qpPolicyRuleMatchMethod ( NAME 'qpPolicyRuleMatchMethod' DESC 'The decision strategy to be applied on this set of qos policy rules by policy servers. Values are 1="First Match", 2="Match All". Default value is 1.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.6. Class qosPolicyPRAction ( NAME 'qosPolicyPRAction' DESC 'A class that defines provisioning DiffServ Traffic actions to be applied on a specific flow or group of flows, if a certain rule's condition is met.' SUP policyActionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( qpDirection $ qpSetDSCPvalue $ qpMeter $ qpMeterScope $ qpPRTrfcProf $ qpOutOfProfileAction $ qpOutOfProfileRemarkValue ) ) 8.6.1. The Attribute qpDirection ( NAME 'qpDirection' DESC 'this attribute defines the direction of the action (e.g., the incoming or/and outgoing interfaces). Values are 0=In, 1=Out.' SYNTAX Integer EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.6.2. The Attribute qpSetDSCPvalue ( NAME 'qpSetDSCPvalue' DESC 'This attribute defines the DSCP value of the mark action.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.6.3. The Attribute qpMeter ( NAME 'qpMeter' DESC 'A DN reference to a qosPolicyMeter object used in this provisioning action.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.6.4. The Attribute qpMeterScope ( NAME 'qpMeterScope' DESC 'An integer that defines the scope of the metering action. Values are 0=flow, 1=interface, 2=device' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.6.5. The Attribute qpTrfcProf ( NAME 'qpTrfcProf' DESC 'This attribute contains the DiffServ / provisioning Policing instruction value, defined as a DN reference to a qosPolicyTrfcProf entry.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch 8.6.6. The Attribute qpOutOfProfileAction ( NAME 'qpOutOfProfileAction' DESC 'The action to be applied to out of profile packets, as defined in the DiffServPolicer entry. Values are 0=shape, 1=discard, 2=remark' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch 8.6.7. The Attribute qpOutOfProfileNetstedAction ( NAME 'qpOutOfProfileNestedAction' DESC 'A DN reference of a qosPolicyPRAction to be applied on out of band packets if the OutOfProfile action is defined for this flow. SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.6.8. The Attribute qpOutOfProfileRemarkValue ( NAME 'qpOutOfProfileRemarkValue' DESC 'The DSCP value to be applied to out of profile packets if the OutOfProfile action is defined as REMARK.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.7. Class qosPolicyRSVPAction ( NAME 'qosPolicyRSVPAction' DESC 'A class that defines an RSVP action to be performed if a certain rule's condition is met.' SUP policyActionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( qpDirection $ qpRSVPMessageType $ qpRSVPStyle $ qpRSVPServiceType $ qpRSVPInstallAction $ qpRSVPCtrlAction $ qpMeter $ qpMeterScope $ qpTrfcProf ) ) 8.7.2. The Attribute qpRSVPMessageType ( NAME 'qpRSVPMessageType' DESC 'This attribute defines the type of RSVP message to be handled. Values are 0=Path, 1=Resv, 2=ResvErr, 3=PathErr' SYNTAX Integer EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.7.3. The Attribute qpRSVPStyle ( NAME 'qpRSVPStyle' DESC 'This Property limits the scope of the action to be enforced only on RSVP Requests with the specified reservation style. The allowed styles are Shared Explicit (SE), Fixed Filter (FF) and Wildcard Filter (WF) as defined in [RSVP]. Values are 0=SE, 1=FF, 2=WF' SYNTAX Integer EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.7.4. The Attribute qpRSVPServiceType ( NAME 'qpRSVPServiceType' DESC 'this Property limits the scope of the action to be enforced only on RSVP Requests asking for specified integrated service type. Values are 1=ControlledLoad 2=GuaranteedService, 3=NULL.' SYNTAX Integer EQUALITY IntegerMatch 8.7.5. The Attribute qpRSVPInstallAction ( NAME 'qpRSVPInstallAction' DESC 'A DN reference to a QosPolicyRSVPInstallAction object used in conjunction with the RSVP reservation.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.7.6. The Attribute qpRSVPCtrlAction ( NAME 'qpRSVPCtrlAction' DESC 'A DN reference to a qpRSVPCtrlAction object used in conjunction with the RSVP reservation.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.8. Class qosPolicyPRTrfcProf ( NAME 'qosPolicyPRTrfcProf' DESC 'A class that defines the policer or shaper rate values to be enforced on a flow or a set of flows.' SUP Policy AUXILIARY MAY ( qpPRRate $ qpPRNormalBurst $ qpPRExcessBurst ) ) 8.8.1. The Attribute qpPRRate ( NAME 'qpPRRate' DESC 'The token rate used for policing this flow or set of flows. It is specified in units of bits/second. A rate of zero means that all packets will be out of profile.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.8.2. The Attribute qpPRNormalBurst ( NAME 'qpPRNormalBurst' DESC 'The normal size of a burst measured in bytes' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.8.3. The Attribute qpPRExcessBurst ( NAME 'qpPRExcessBurst' DESC 'The excess size of a burst measured in bytes' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9. Class qosPolicyRSVPTrfcProf ( NAME 'qosPolicyRSVPTrfcProf' DESC 'A class that defines rate limiting values for QoS requests for a flow or a set of flow via RSVP SUP Policy AUXILIARY MAY ( qpRSVPTokenRate $ qpRSVPPeakRate $ qpRSVPBucketSize $ qpRSVPResvRate $ qpRSVPResvSlack $ qpRSVPSessionNum $ qpMinPolicedUnit $ qpMaxPktSize) ) 8.9.1. The Attribute qpRSVPTokenRate ( NAME 'qpRSVPTokenRate' DESC 'Token Rate parameter, measured in bits/sec' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.2. The Attribute qpRSVPPeakRate ( NAME 'qpRSVPPeakRate' DESC 'Peak rate parameter, measured is bits/sec' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.3. The Attribute qpRSVPBucketSize ( NAME 'qpRSVPBucketSize' DESC 'Bucket Size, measured in bytes' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.4. The Attribute qpRSVPResvRate ( NAME 'qpRSVPResvRate' DESC 'Defines the RSVP Rate. This is the R-Spec parameter in the RSVP Guaranteed service reservation. Measured in bits/sec.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.5. The Attribute qpRSVPResvSlack ( NAME 'qpRSVPResvSlack' DESC 'Defines the RSVP Slack Termparameter in the RSVP Guaranteed service reservation. Measured in microseconds.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.6. The Attribute qpRSVPSessionNum ( NAME 'qpRSVPSessionNum' DESC 'The total number of allowed active RSVP sessions.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.7. The Attribute qpMinPolicedUnit ( NAME 'qpMinPolicedUnit' DESC 'Defines the RSVP minimum policed unit, measured in bytes.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.9.8. The Attribute qpMaxPktSize ( NAME 'qpMaxPktSize' DESC 'Defines the RSVP maximum allowed packet size, measured in bytes.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.10. Class qosPolicyRSVPSignalCtrlAction ( NAME 'qosPolicyRSVPSignalCtrlAction' DESC 'Actions modifying the behavior and content of RSVP Signaling flows.' SUP 'policyActionAuxClass' AUXILIARY MAY ( qpForwardingMode $ qpSendError $ qpReplaceDSCP $ qpReplacePreemptionPriority $ qpReplaceDefendingPriority ) ) 8.10.1. The Attribute qpForwardingMode ( NAME 'qpForwardingMode' DESC 'Defines whether to forward or return RSVP signaling. Values are 1=Forward, 2=Proxy.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.10.2. The Attribute qpSendError ( NAME 'qpSendError' DESC 'Defines whether to send an RSVP error and warning message. Values are 0=No, 1=Yes' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.10.3. The Attribute qpReplaceDSCP ( NAME 'qpReplaceDSCP' DESC 'This attribute allows the replacement of a DCLASS object carrying a DSCP value in an RSVP message. Values are 0=Replace, 1=Don\'t Replace.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.10.4. The Attribute qpReplacePreemptionPriority ( NAME 'qpReplacePreemptionPriority' DESC 'A positive integer value specifying the preemption priority that should be carried by RSVP messages. Default value is 0.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.10.5. The Attribute qpReplaceDefendingPriority ( NAME 'qpReplaceDefendingPriority' DESC 'This attribute allows replacing or adding of preemption priority [RSVP_PREEMP] objects to RSVP messages. It specifies the defending priority within the preemption object. Default value is 0' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.11. Class qosPolicyRSVPInstallAction ( NAME 'qosPolicyRSVPInstallAction' DESC 'A class that defines actions to be administered on a PEP.' SUP policyActionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( qpSetDSCPValue $ qpSetDefendingPriority $ qpSetPreemptionPriority ) 8.11.1. The Attribute qpSetDSCPValue ( NAME 'qpSetDSCPValue' DESC 'Defines the value the PEP must use to remark the flow signaled by the RSVP request.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.11.2. The Attribute qpSetDefendingPriority ( NAME 'qpSetDefendingPriority' DESC 'This attribute allows setting the preemption priority [RSVP_PREEMP] of RSVP flows. It specifies the defending priority within the preemption object. Default value is 0' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.11.3. The Attribute qpSetPreemptionPriority ( NAME 'qpSetPreemptionPriority' DESC 'This attribute allows setting the preemption priority [RSVP_PREEMP] of RSVP flows. Default value is 0.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.12. Class qosPolicySimpleCondition (Aux) ( NAME 'qosPolicySimpleCondition' DESC 'A class that represents a single Boolean condition. A group of conditions make up a Boolean expression. A simple condition is made of the triple ' SUP policyConditionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( qpOperator $ qpVariableAtom $ qpValueAtom ) 8.12.1. The Attribute qpOperator ( NAME 'qpOperator' DESC 'The relation between a variable and a value, stored in a directory entry. Default value is "match"' SYNTAX DirectoryString SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY CaseIgnoreString ) 8.12.2. The Attribute qpVariableAtom ( NAME 'qpVariableAtom' DESC 'A reference to a variable, stored in a directory entry' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.12.3. The Attribute qpValueAtom ( NAME 'qpValueAtom' DESC 'A reference to a value, stored in a directory entry' SYNTAX DistinguishedName SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.13. Class qosPolicyVariable ( NAME 'qosPolicyVariable' DESC 'A class that represents a single variable in a Boolean condition' SUP Policy AUXILIARY MAY ( qpVariableName $ qpValueTypes $ qpVariableDescription $ qpValueConstraints ) ) 8.13.1. The Attribute qpVariableName ( NAME 'qpVariableName' DESC 'A unique name for the variable.' SYNTAX IA5String SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY CaseExactIA5Match ) 8.13.2 The Attribute qpValueTypes ( NAME 'qpValueTypes' DESC 'A list of class names of possible value types that can be associated with this variable in a condition' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5StringMatch ) 8.13.3. The Attribute qpVariableDescription ( NAME 'qpVariableDescription' DESC 'A textual description of the variable' SYNTAX DirectoryString SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY CaseIgnoreMatch ) 8.13.4. The Attribute qpValueConstraints ( NAME 'qpValueConstraints' DESC 'A list of DNs of the objects serving as constraints for this variable.' SYNTAX DistinguishedName EQUALITY DistinguishedNameMatch ) 8.14. Class qosPolicyValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyValue' DESC 'This class is used as an abstract class for defining values and constants used in policy conditions' SUP Policy ABSTRACT ) 8.15. Class qosPolicyIPv4AddrValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyIPv4AddrValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of IPv4 addresses and address range values' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpIPv4AddrList ) ) 8.15.1. The Attribute qpIPv4AddrList ( NAME 'qpIPv4AddrList' DESC 'A list of IP addresses and IP address ranges. The format for entries in this list is either: 1. A single IPv4address in dot notation as defined above. Example: 121.1.1.2 2. A single Hostname. Hostname format MUST follow guidelines and restrictions specified in [NAMES]. Example: www.bigcompany.com 3. An IPv4range address range defined above, specified by a start address in dot notation and an end address in dot notation, separated by "..". The range includes all addresses between the range's start and end addresses, including the start and end addresses. Example: 1.1.22.1..1.1.22.5 4. An IPv4maskedaddress address range defined above, specified by an address and mask. The address and mask are represented in dot notation separated by a comma ",". Example: 2.3.128.0,255.255.248.0. 5. An IPv4prefix address range defined above specified by an address and a prefix length separated by "/". Example: 2.3.128.0/15' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.16. Class qosPolicyIPv6AddrValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyIPv6AddrValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of IPv6 addresses and IPv6 address range values.' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpIPv6AddrList ) ) 8.16.1. The Attribute qpIPv6AddrList ( NAME 'qpIPv6AddrList' DESC 'A list of IPv6 addresses and IPv6 address ranges. An entry in this list may be one of the following: 1. A single IPv6address as defined by the following ABNF: IPv6address = hexpart [ ":" IPv4address ] IPv4address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT hexpart = hexseq | hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] | "::" [ hexseq ] hexseq = hex4 *( ":" hex4) hex4 = 1*4HEXDIG 2. A single Hostname. Hostname format MUST follow guidelines and restrictions specified in [NAMES]. Example: www.bigcompany.com 3. An IPv6range address range, specified by a start address in dot notation and an end address in dot notation, separated by "..": IPv6range = IPv6address".."IPv6address The range includes all addresses between the range's start and end addresses, including the start and end addresses. 4. An IPv4maskedaddress address range defined above specified by an address and mask. The address and mask are represented in dot notation separated by a comma ",": IPv6maskedaddress = IPv6address","IPv6address 5. A single IPv6prefix: IPv6prefix = hexpart "/" 1*2DIGIT' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.17. Class qosPolicyMACAddrValue ( qos-oc-14> NAME 'qosPolicyMACAddrValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of MAC addresses and MAC address range values.' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpMACAddrList ) ) 8.17.1. The Attribute qpMACAddrList ( NAME 'qpMACAddrList' DESC 'A list of MAC addresses and MAC address ranges. Entries are MAC addresses or MAC address ranges: 1. A single MAC address. Example: 0000:00A5:0000 2. A MACmaskedaddress address range defined specified by an address and mask. The mask specifies the relevant bits in the address. Example: 0000:00A5:0000, FFFF:FFFF:0000 defines a range of MAC addresses in which the first 4 8-bit bytes are equal to 0000:00A5.' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.18. Class qosPolicyStringValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyStringValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of string values with wildcards' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpStringList ) ) 8.18.1. The Attribute qpStringList ( NAME 'qpStringList' DESC 'A list of string values with wildcards.' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY CaseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.19 Class qosPolicyBitStringValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyBitStringValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of bit string values.' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpBitStringList ) ) 8.19.1. The Attribute qpBitStringList ( NAME 'qpBitStringList' DESC 'A list of bit string values. Each string entry is either: 1. A single bit string. Example: 00111010 2. A range of bit strings specifies using a bit string and a bit mask. The bit string and mask must have the same number of bits specified. The mask bit string specifies the significant bits in the bit string value. For example, 110110, 100110 and 110111 would match the maskedBitString 100110,101110 but 100100 would not.' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY CaseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.20. Class qosPolicyDNValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyDNValue' DESC 'This class is used to define a list of DN values with wildcards.' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpDNList ) ) 8.20.1. The Attribute qpDNList ( NAME 'qpDNList' DESC 'A list of DN string values with wildcards' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY CaseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.21. Class qosPolicyAttributeValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyAttributeValue' DESC 'This class is used to define an attribute and a list of its values.' SUP qosPolicyValue AUXILIARY MAY ( qpAttributeName $ qpAttributeValueList ) ) 8.21.1. The Attribute qpAttributeName ( NAME 'qpAttributeName' DESC 'This is the name of an attribute that the list of values should be compared with' SYNTAX IA5String SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY CaseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.21.2. The Attribute qpAttributeValueList ( NAME 'qpAttributeValueList' DESC 'A list of attribute values. Each value is compared to a value of the attribute specified by qpAttributeName.' SYNTAX IA5String EQUALITY CaseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.22. Class qosPolicyIntegerValue ( NAME 'qosPolicyIntegerValue' DESC 'This class is used to define Integer values' SUP 'qosPolicyValue' AUXILIARY MAY ( qpIntegerList ) ) 8.22.1. The Attribute qpIntegerList ( NAME 'qpIntegerList' DESC 'This attribute provides an unordered list of integers and integer range values. The format of the attribute can take on of the following forms: 1. An integer value. 2. A range of integers. The range is specifies by a start integer and an end integer separated by "..". The range includes all integers between start and end integers, including the start and end integers. To represent a range of integers that is not bounded, the reserved word INFINITY can be used as the end range integer.' SYNTAX IA5string EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match ) 8.23. Class qosPolicyPHBSet ( NAME 'qosPolicyPHBSet' DESC 'This class defines a set of PHB definitions' SUP policy AUXILIARY ) 8.24. Class qosPolicyPHB ( NAME 'qosPolicyPHB' DESC 'This class defines a single service class in a PHB set.' SUP Policy ABSTRACT MAY ( qpDSCP ) ) 8.24.1. The attribute qpDSCP ( NAME 'qpDSCP' DESC 'An integer in the range 0..63, representing the service classes in the domain that are used for classification.' SYNTAX Integer SINGLE-VALUE EQUALITY IntegerMatch ) 8.25. Class qosPolicyElementAuxClass ( NAME 'qosPolicyElementAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class used to tag instances of classes defined outside the realm of qos policy as relevant to a particular policy specification.' SUP policyElementAuxClass AUXILIARY ) From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Mar 10 13:05:24 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11645 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id NAA11166; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:01:31 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id NAA24036; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:01:34 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA50242; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:38 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57400; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:36 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id MAA31270 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:37 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id MAA48226 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:36 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 8525689E.0060B655 ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:36:21 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <8525689E.0060B253.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:31:38 -0500 Subject: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com An updated draft (-04) of the PCIM is now available in the Internet-Drafts repository. The following changes were made between the -03 and -04 drafts: 1. Discussion of "declarative" vs. "procedural" updated. 2. General discussion of roles (and their roles in the Policy Framework:-) updated. 3. New PolicyRoles property added to PolicyRule. 4. UCS-2 encoding for CIM strings explained more fully. 5. Character set & encoding for CIM class names clarified. 6. Changed encodings for PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask properties from strings to octet strings. 7. Clarified encoding of OIDs for ConstraintEncoding and ActionEncoding properties. 8. Expanded the names for several of the association classes and their reference properties. 9. Updated Acknowledgments section. 10. Updated Security Considerations section. 11. Updated References section. 12. Made various minor editorial fixes. Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Sun Mar 12 10:35:02 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04984 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA23246; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:31:44 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA34654; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:31:47 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA40828; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:55:12 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57708; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:55:08 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA31252 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:55:08 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA25638 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:55:07 -0500 Received: from ysnir8000 (telaviv3-dhcp77.cisco.com [144.254.93.205]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA03643; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:54:59 +0200 (IST) From: "Yoram Snir" To: "'Ryan Moats'" , "'Ron Cohen (E-mail)'" , "'John Strassner'" , "'Yoram Ramberg'" Cc: "'Policy Mailing List'" Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:53:13 +0200 Message-Id: <002201bf8c32$b20504b0$cd5dfe90@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Yoram Snir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ryan Thanks for the ABNF representation and your valuable comments. Please see my comments inline. Yoram Snir Cisco Systems Tel. 972-9-9700085 Mobile 972-54-970085 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Moats [mailto:jayhawk@att.com] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:30 PM > To: Ron Cohen (E-mail); John Strassner; Yoram Ramberg; Yoram Snir > Cc: Policy Mailing List > Subject: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt > > > Attached is the promised ABNF for the schema draft. > I still need to do ABNF for the IM draft, which > will be under separate cover (and I'll aim for > end of next week). This ABNF needs OID > assignment at some point, right now the OIDs are > indicated by <...> placeholders. > > Ryan > > Some problems/issues I noted: > > 1. In sections 8.6, 8.7, and 8.12; you can only attach > auxiliary classes to a structural class, so I ignored > the auxiliary class line. Let me know if these are actually > structural > classes. > True, the idea here is that the traffic profiles and meter classes should be attached to the same structural object the actions are attached to. Will be fixed in our next version. > 2. In section 8.6.1 why is the attribute multi-valued? Because a policy action can be done on incoming flows (qpDirection = 0{IN}), out going flows (qpDirection = 1{OUT}) or both, incoming AND out going (qpDirection = 0{IN}, 1{out}). > > 3. In general, why are you breaking the convention that > auxiliary classes end in auxclass? It looked a bit awkward, especially when thinking that each of the auxiliary object, can be instantiated as a reusable object (using the policy Instance class). If people feel we should stick with the current convention, we will add the auxclass suffix to the class names. > > 4. Attribute definitions are global in LDAP. Thus > the following sections were removed (I did not renumber > for clarity with the -00 draft): 8.7.1, 8.7.7, 8.7.8, > and 8.7.9 > True, these sections should refer to a single definition, will be fixed in the next version. > 5. In 8.21.2, Equality needs to be caseIgnoreIA5Match True, will be fixed in the next version. > > 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into > qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. Please take a look at the PHB LDAP representation draft: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ronc-domain-phb-set-ldap-rep-00 .txt We tried to allow different abstract definition of per hop behaviors, the above is our proposal. > > 7. In 8.25, this method of tagging won't work if the > directory implementation doesn't record the object class. You should > consider adding an attribute. We extended the PolicyElementAuxClass, that extends the Policy class, with out adding any attributes, so we think we can follow the same mechanism as defined in the core schema, i.e., add "QOS POLICY" to the keyword attribute for such systems. We will add this recommendation to the draft. Thanks again. > > =======ABNF From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Sun Mar 12 20:24:16 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23382 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id UAA25920; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:21:08 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id UAA27930; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:21:06 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51714; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:48:59 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41466; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:48:56 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id TAA23552 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:49:00 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id TAA25398 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:48:57 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap ([171.69.108.130]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA24139; Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:48:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <03be01bf8c40$7a1ab730$826c45ab@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: "Ryan Moats" , , , , Cc: References: <200003122300.SAA09730@qsun.mt.att.com> Subject: Re: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:31:53 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I completely agree with Yoram's comments, and thanks Ryan for your valuable work. I'll be revving this puppy this week, and it will appear next Monday when the repository is opened up again. regrds, John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Moats" To: "Ryan Moats" ; ; ; ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:00 PM Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt > My responses... > > | > > | > 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into > | > qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. > | > | Please take a look at the PHB LDAP representation draft: > | http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ronc-domain-phb-set-ldap-rep-00 > .txt > | > | We tried to allow different abstract definition of per hop behaviors, the > | above is our proposal. > > Please add some text then to 8.23 because I looked through both > the QoS Info Model and Schema drafts and didn't see the discussion > in the URL above references clearly anywhere (it may have been there, > but I certainly missed it. > > Having looked at the URL above, I've got some comments on it, > but I'll put that under separate cover. > > Ryan > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 02:10:26 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15817 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id CAA35112; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:06:52 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id CAA26804; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:06:51 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA49714; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:35:19 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA62248; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:35:14 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA28770 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:35:19 -0500 Received: from mailhost.iitb.ac.in (mailhost.iitb.ac.in [202.54.44.115]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id BAA31176 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:35:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 6294 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2000 06:51:22 -0000 Received: from surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (144.16.111.14) by mailhost.iitb.ac.in with SMTP; 13 Mar 2000 06:51:22 -0000 Received: from everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (dhiman@everest [144.16.111.4]) by surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05249 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:05:31 +0530 (IST) Received: (from dhiman@localhost) by everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) id MAA02810 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:03:19 +0530 (GMT) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:03:19 +0530 From: Dhiman Barman To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: PIB Message-Id: <20000313120319.A2362@cse.iitb.ernet.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Dhiman Barman Hi, May I know if any one has looked into COPS/PIB kind of structures for Network Management kind of things. Thanks. Any pointers will be of of much help. Sincerely, Dhiman From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 02:17:13 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18494 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id CAA35086; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:10:57 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id CAA31370; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:10:55 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA24828; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:41 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57844; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:38 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA30236 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:43 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA34944 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:40 -0500 Received: from ysnir8000 ([144.254.95.29]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA25713; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:45:37 +0200 (IST) From: "Yoram Snir" To: "'Ryan Moats'" , , , Cc: Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:43:48 +0200 Message-Id: <000501bf8cb7$7ce41750$0200000a@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200003122300.SAA09730@qsun.mt.att.com> Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Yoram Snir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please see inline. Yoram Snir Cisco Systems Tel. 972-9-9700085 Mobile 972-54-970085 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Moats [mailto:jayhawk@qsun.mt.att.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:01 AM > To: Ryan Moats; johns@cisco.com; ronc@cisco.com; yramberg@cisco.com; > ysnir@cisco.com > Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt > > > My responses... > > | > > | > 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into > | > qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. > | > | Please take a look at the PHB LDAP representation draft: > | > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ronc-domain-phb-s > et-ldap-rep-00 > .txt > | > | We tried to allow different abstract definition of per hop > behaviors, the > | above is our proposal. > > Please add some text then to 8.23 because I looked through both > the QoS Info Model and Schema drafts and didn't see the discussion > in the URL above references clearly anywhere (it may have been there, > but I certainly missed it. OK, but this section, IMO, needs to remain just a place holder for PHB definition which is of the scope of this draft. > > Having looked at the URL above, I've got some comments on it, > but I'll put that under separate cover. OK, great. > > Ryan > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 02:44:30 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29405 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:44:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id CAA07454; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:41:04 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id CAA28528; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:41:03 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA62316; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:09:24 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57844; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:38 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA30236 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:43 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA34944 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:45:40 -0500 Received: from ysnir8000 ([144.254.95.29]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA25713; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:45:37 +0200 (IST) From: "Yoram Snir" To: "'Ryan Moats'" , , , Cc: Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:43:48 +0200 Message-Id: <000501bf8cb7$7ce41750$0200000a@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200003122300.SAA09730@qsun.mt.att.com> Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Yoram Snir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please see inline. Yoram Snir Cisco Systems Tel. 972-9-9700085 Mobile 972-54-970085 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Moats [mailto:jayhawk@qsun.mt.att.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:01 AM > To: Ryan Moats; johns@cisco.com; ronc@cisco.com; yramberg@cisco.com; > ysnir@cisco.com > Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt > > > My responses... > > | > > | > 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into > | > qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. > | > | Please take a look at the PHB LDAP representation draft: > | > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ronc-domain-phb-s > et-ldap-rep-00 > .txt > | > | We tried to allow different abstract definition of per hop > behaviors, the > | above is our proposal. > > Please add some text then to 8.23 because I looked through both > the QoS Info Model and Schema drafts and didn't see the discussion > in the URL above references clearly anywhere (it may have been there, > but I certainly missed it. OK, but this section, IMO, needs to remain just a place holder for PHB definition which is of the scope of this draft. > > Having looked at the URL above, I've got some comments on it, > but I'll put that under separate cover. OK, great. > > Ryan > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 03:40:38 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20721 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 03:40:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id DAA17860; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 03:37:31 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id DAA29302; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 03:37:30 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA44172; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:57:19 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA36664; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:57:11 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id CAA30504 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:57:17 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id CAA24740 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:57:13 -0500 Received: from ysnir8000 ([144.254.95.29]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA27798 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:57:16 +0200 (IST) From: "Yoram Snir" To: "'Policy Mailing List' (E-mail)" Subject: RE: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:55:27 +0200 Message-Id: <000b01bf8cc1$7f597890$0200000a@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Yoram Snir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please see inline. Yoram Snir Cisco Systems Tel. 972-9-9700085 Mobile 972-54-970085 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Moats [mailto:jayhawk@qsun.mt.att.com] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:01 AM > To: Ryan Moats; johns@cisco.com; ronc@cisco.com; yramberg@cisco.com; > ysnir@cisco.com > Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: RE: Promised ABNF for draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt > > > My responses... > > | > > | > 6. In 8.23, it is unclear how qosPolicyPHB hooks into > | > qosPolicyPHBSet, since the latter has no attributes. > | > | Please take a look at the PHB LDAP representation draft: > | > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ronc-domain-phb-s > et-ldap-rep-00 > .txt > | > | We tried to allow different abstract definition of per hop > behaviors, the > | above is our proposal. > > Please add some text then to 8.23 because I looked through both > the QoS Info Model and Schema drafts and didn't see the discussion > in the URL above references clearly anywhere (it may have been there, > but I certainly missed it. OK, but this section, IMO, needs to remain just a place holder for PHB definition which is of the scope of this draft. > > Having looked at the URL above, I've got some comments on it, > but I'll put that under separate cover. OK, great. > > Ryan > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 06:18:31 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14955 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id GAA29080; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:15:17 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id GAA33206; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:15:16 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38762; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:43:03 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA36450; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:43:00 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id FAA22728 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:43:00 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id FAA27090 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:42:57 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 13 Mar 00 10:53:24 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by BJEX1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:42:29 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAF6@BJEX1> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:42:27 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14D2172E5686-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CD8.D3E4B44E" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8CD8.D3E4B44E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 6. Changed encodings for PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask properties from strings to octet strings. < Can I suggest that the example in 6.5.2 The Property "MonthOfYearMask", is changed from May & August, to something less ambiguous? Dave Lowndes ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CD8.D3E4B44E Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM

> 6. Changed encodings for = PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask
   properties from strings to octet = strings.
<

Can I suggest that the example in 6.5.2 The Property = "MonthOfYearMask", is changed from May & August, to = something less ambiguous?

Dave Lowndes

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CD8.D3E4B44E-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 09:39:37 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28456 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA26934; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:35:42 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA33050; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:35:43 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA37290; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:04:45 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52108; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:04:41 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA22374 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:04:42 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id JAA28580 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:04:38 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 13 Mar 00 14:15:08 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by BJEX1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:04:12 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAF8@BJEX1> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:04:10 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14D228667540-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CF5.022B641C" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8CF5.022B641C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 6. Changed encodings for PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask properties from strings to octet strings. < All these changes have a common format with a 4-octet length field specifying the overall length of the attribute value. I can't envisage there being any future requirement to change the length of these items, or to evaluate them by some common code that would benefit from this structure. Therefore it seems superfluous to include the length. Is there a valid reason for the 4-octet length fields? Dave Lowndes ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CF5.022B641C Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM

> 6. Changed encodings for = PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask
   properties from strings to octet = strings.
<

All these changes have a common format with a 4-octet = length field specifying the overall length of the attribute = value.

I can't envisage there being any future requirement = to change the length of these items, or to evaluate them by some common = code that would benefit from this structure. Therefore it seems = superfluous to include the length.

Is there a valid reason for the 4-octet length = fields?

Dave Lowndes

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8CF5.022B641C-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 09:42:02 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29513 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:42:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA24354; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:37:44 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA20088; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:37:33 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41514; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:51 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41998; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:47 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA30336 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:48 -0500 Received: from ihemlsrv.firewall.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [192.11.222.161]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA28484 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:46 -0500 Received: from ihemlsrv.firewall.lucent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ihemlsrv.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22723 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from nj7460exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-17-42-36.lucent.com [135.17.42.36]) by ihemlsrv.firewall.lucent.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22719 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by nj7460exch001h.ho.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1YHJCDD5>; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:46 -0500 Message-Id: <10632F7077C0D11190B900805F6F851C0507B1EA@nj7460exch002u.ho.lucent.com> From: "Macri, Philip P (Philip)" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com, "'Dhiman Barman'" Subject: RE: PIB Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:13:38 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Macri, Philip P (Philip)" Me too. Thanks Philip Macri Lucent Technologies, Inc HCP 21A 2139 Highway 35 Holmdel, N.J 07733 Phone: (732)-332-2407 Fax: (732)-332-2464 e-mail: pmacri@lucent.com (732)-224-0113 (Home) pmacri@home.com (Home) > ---------- > From: Dhiman Barman[SMTP:dhiman@cse.iitb.ernet.in] > Reply To: Dhiman Barman > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:33 AM > To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: PIB > > Hi, > May I know if any one has looked into COPS/PIB kind of structures > for Network Management kind of things. Thanks. Any pointers will be of > of much help. > > Sincerely, > Dhiman > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 10:02:57 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07876 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:02:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA26696; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:59:28 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAB31582; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:59:28 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA48750; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:37:22 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38442; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:50 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA27450 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:51 -0500 Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.224.210]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA22156 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:48 -0500 Received: from jschnizl1-pc (jschnizl-isdn2.cisco.com [171.68.12.75]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id GAA13097; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:27:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000313091609.00a768b0@diablo.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:25:22 -0500 To: remoore@us.ibm.com, policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: John Schnizlein Subject: Re: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM In-Reply-To: <8525689E.0060B253.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Schnizlein Am I the only person who sees a problem in that the Policy Framework draft is proposing a format for time-dates and periods of them that is incompatible with Standard-track RFC 2445? I expected that my answers to Bob's questions last month regarding changing the draft would lead to compatibility. What is the compelling reason to introduce time format translations for any attempt to interoperate between Internet-standard scheduling and Policy? John draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt 6.5.1. The Property "TimePeriod" This property identifies an overall range of calendar dates and times over which a policy rule is valid. It is formatted as a string consisting of a start date and time, then a colon (':'), and followed by an end date and time. The first date indicates the beginning of the range, while the second date indicates the end. Thus, the second date and time must be later than the first. Dates are expressed as substrings of the form "yyyymmddhhmmss". For example: 19990101080000:19990131120000 RFC 2445: The iCalendar format is suitable as an exchange format between applications or systems. The format is defined in terms of a MIME content type. This will enable the object to be exchanged using several transports, including but not limited to SMTP, HTTP, ... 4.3.4 Date Example: The following represents July 14, 1997: 19970714 4.3.5 Date-Time For example, the following represents January 19, 1998, at 0700 UTC: DTSTART:19980119T070000Z 4.3.9 Period of Time Example: The period starting at 18:00:00 UTC, on January 1, 1997 and ending at 07:00:00 UTC on January 2, 1997 would be: 19970101T180000Z/19970102T070000Z From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 10:04:08 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08257 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:04:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA27744; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:59:30 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA13062; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:59:30 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA35928; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:57 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38442; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:50 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA27450 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:51 -0500 Received: from diablo.cisco.com (diablo.cisco.com [171.68.224.210]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA22156 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:48 -0500 Received: from jschnizl1-pc (jschnizl-isdn2.cisco.com [171.68.12.75]) by diablo.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with SMTP id GAA13097; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:27:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000313091609.00a768b0@diablo.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@diablo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:25:22 -0500 To: remoore@us.ibm.com, policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: John Schnizlein Subject: Re: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM In-Reply-To: <8525689E.0060B253.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: John Schnizlein Am I the only person who sees a problem in that the Policy Framework draft is proposing a format for time-dates and periods of them that is incompatible with Standard-track RFC 2445? I expected that my answers to Bob's questions last month regarding changing the draft would lead to compatibility. What is the compelling reason to introduce time format translations for any attempt to interoperate between Internet-standard scheduling and Policy? John draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt 6.5.1. The Property "TimePeriod" This property identifies an overall range of calendar dates and times over which a policy rule is valid. It is formatted as a string consisting of a start date and time, then a colon (':'), and followed by an end date and time. The first date indicates the beginning of the range, while the second date indicates the end. Thus, the second date and time must be later than the first. Dates are expressed as substrings of the form "yyyymmddhhmmss". For example: 19990101080000:19990131120000 RFC 2445: The iCalendar format is suitable as an exchange format between applications or systems. The format is defined in terms of a MIME content type. This will enable the object to be exchanged using several transports, including but not limited to SMTP, HTTP, ... 4.3.4 Date Example: The following represents July 14, 1997: 19970714 4.3.5 Date-Time For example, the following represents January 19, 1998, at 0700 UTC: DTSTART:19980119T070000Z 4.3.9 Period of Time Example: The period starting at 18:00:00 UTC, on January 1, 1997 and ending at 07:00:00 UTC on January 2, 1997 would be: 19970101T180000Z/19970102T070000Z From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 11:24:14 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10019 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA26202; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:20:44 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id LAA27998; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:20:46 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA08086; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:55:57 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA08076; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:55:54 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA30546 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:55:55 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id KAA30342; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:55:54 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 852568A1.00578176 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:55:47 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: John Schnizlein Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <852568A1.00577CB2.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:50:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com John, Let me explain what happened. Since there has been no suggestion that the current encodings for these fields don't work, the authors of the draft decided that their lack of alignment with the RFC 2445 encodings is a second-order problem. If the WG as a whole thinks this alignment is important, we can certainly change the draft. But so far I haven't heard even one other person second your motion to make this change. Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com John Schnizlein @raleigh.ibm.com on 03/13/2000 09:25:22 AM Please respond to John Schnizlein Sent by: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com To: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: Subject: Re: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Am I the only person who sees a problem in that the Policy Framework draft is proposing a format for time-dates and periods of them that is incompatible with Standard-track RFC 2445? I expected that my answers to Bob's questions last month regarding changing the draft would lead to compatibility. What is the compelling reason to introduce time format translations for any attempt to interoperate between Internet-standard scheduling and Policy? John draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt 6.5.1. The Property "TimePeriod" This property identifies an overall range of calendar dates and times over which a policy rule is valid. It is formatted as a string consisting of a start date and time, then a colon (':'), and followed by an end date and time. The first date indicates the beginning of the range, while the second date indicates the end. Thus, the second date and time must be later than the first. Dates are expressed as substrings of the form "yyyymmddhhmmss". For example: 19990101080000:19990131120000 RFC 2445: The iCalendar format is suitable as an exchange format between applications or systems. The format is defined in terms of a MIME content type. This will enable the object to be exchanged using several transports, including but not limited to SMTP, HTTP, ... 4.3.4 Date Example: The following represents July 14, 1997: 19970714 4.3.5 Date-Time For example, the following represents January 19, 1998, at 0700 UTC: DTSTART:19980119T070000Z 4.3.9 Period of Time Example: The period starting at 18:00:00 UTC, on January 1, 1997 and ending at 07:00:00 UTC on January 2, 1997 would be: 19970101T180000Z/19970102T070000Z From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 12:40:02 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10215 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA26672; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:36:29 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA33250; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:36:22 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA35606; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:13:34 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41700; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:13:28 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id MAA25720 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:13:30 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id MAA43814 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:13:24 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 13 Mar 00 17:23:55 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by BJEX1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:12:58 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAFA@BJEX1> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:12:55 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14D3FBA19456-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D0F.60F44DB4" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8D0F.60F44DB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Am I the only person who sees a problem in that the Policy Framework draft is proposing a format for time-dates and periods of them that is incompatible with Standard-track RFC 2445? < While I'm not personally concerned with incompatibility with other specifications, I did raise an issue last week regarding the interpretation for times spanning midnight. I feel that this facility gives rise to something that is counter-intuitive to implement in a user interface - see the thread "Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midnight". If the specification of time periods in the calendar group gives a more flexible and intuitive interface, then I'd say use it. For example, does it have the ability to represent something like the first (or last) weekday (Mon-Fri) of a month? Does it cater more intuitively with times spanning midnight? Dave Lowndes ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D0F.60F44DB4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM

> Am I the only person who sees a problem in that = the Policy Framework
draft is proposing a format for time-dates and = periods of them that is
incompatible with Standard-track RFC 2445?
<

While I'm not personally concerned with = incompatibility with other specifications, I did raise an issue last = week regarding the interpretation for times spanning midnight. I feel = that this facility gives rise to something that is counter-intuitive to = implement in a user interface - see the thread "Confusion = regarding user interpretations for times spanning = midnight".

If the specification of time periods in the calendar = group gives a more flexible and intuitive interface, then I'd say use = it. For example, does it have the ability to represent something like = the first (or last) weekday (Mon-Fri) of a month? Does it cater more = intuitively with times spanning midnight?

Dave Lowndes

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D0F.60F44DB4-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 15:29:33 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18995 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA23504; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:26:10 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id PAA24392; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:26:10 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA43198; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:03:41 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA33718; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:03:38 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA18612 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:03:41 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA29156 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:03:37 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap (dhcp-vm21-191.cisco.com [171.69.86.191]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA23259; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:03:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <021801bf8ce1$d02a3320$bf5645ab@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: "'Policy Mailing List'" Cc: , , , Subject: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:46:47 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0215_01BF8CE1.CFCCF7F0" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0215_01BF8CE1.CFCCF7F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone, here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting of the Policy Framework = WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments and suggestions = asap. tia, John Day 1 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * Agenda Bashing - Ed (5) Status Update - Ed/John (15) PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15) PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt Polterm Requirements Doc - Mark Stevens (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15) no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending Wrapup - Ed (5) Day 2 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (10) QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt (this will be available by 3/17/00) Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt Wrapup - Ed (5) ------=_NextPart_000_0215_01BF8CE1.CFCCF7F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,
 
here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting of = the Policy=20 Framework WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments and = suggestions=20 asap.
 
tia,
John
 
Day 1
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  Agenda Bashing - Ed (5)
  Status Update - = Ed/John=20 (15)
    PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob = (15)
    PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob=20 (25)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
    = PCS=20 (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt
  Polterm = Requirements=20 Doc - Mark Stevens (30)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
  Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken = (15)
      no draft, just = general=20 thoughts; draft is pending
  Wrapup - Ed (5)

Day = 2
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro=20 (10)
    QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) = - John=20 (25)
        = file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt
  &n= bsp; QoS=20 Policy Schema (revision) - John (25)
       =20 file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt
  = ; =20 QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt
        (this = will be=20 available by 3/17/00)
    Requirements and Use Case - = Hugh=20 (30)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt
    Wrapup - Ed = (5)
 ------=_NextPart_000_0215_01BF8CE1.CFCCF7F0-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 15:33:13 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20678 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA31332; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:26:50 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id PAA29436; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:26:50 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51982; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:09:42 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA50182; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:09:39 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA35636 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:09:42 -0500 Received: from palrel3.hp.com (palrel3.hp.com [156.153.255.226]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA24008 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:09:39 -0500 Received: from xpeditio.cnd.hp.com (xpeditio.cnd.hp.com [15.2.113.211]) by palrel3.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705ED11A1 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mhugh@localhost) by xpeditio.cnd.hp.com (8.7.1/8.7.3 TIS 5.0) id NAA08707 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:09:26 -0700 (MST) From: Hugh Mahon Message-Id: <200003132009.NAA08707@xpeditio.cnd.hp.com> Subject: new policy requirements draft To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:09:25 -0700 (MST) Organization: HP Network & System Management Division X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Hugh Mahon Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, I've put a new version of the policy requirements draft, including change bars, on my personal Web page. Unfortunately I had trouble coordinating with the other authors, so I did not submit this before the deadline. This is an unofficial revision. In response to feedback from many people the requirements draft is much shorter, but I have created other drafts with much of the content from the -01 revision (and some of the text removed in the transition from -00 to -01). The text that is no longer in any of the drafts is text dealing with architecture issues. That area is covered in other Policy Framework Working Group Drafts. The drafts can be found at: http://www.users.uswest.net/~hmahon/draft-ietf-policy-req-02-diffs.txt http://www.users.uswest.net/~hmahon/draft-mahon-policy-use-00.txt http://www.users.uswest.net/~hmahon/draft-mahon-policy-mgmt-00.txt Please note that there are no links to these documents so you need to use the full URLs from above. Any comments, questions, or other feedback on these drafts is not only welcome but encouraged. I plan on submitting a new revision after the meeting in Adelaide. Thanks, Hugh Mahon Hewlett-Packard Company e-mail: hugh_mahon@hp.com Phone: (970) 898-BITS (898-2487) From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 16:08:50 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04166 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA29456; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:02:46 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id QAA30102; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:02:47 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA21170; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:41:25 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA12156; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:41:15 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA26314 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:41:18 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA31062 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:41:14 -0500 Received: by BMAILNJ with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:36:07 -0500 Message-Id: <6399122981E1D211AB490090271E0AA33C9D55@BMAILNJ> From: Francis Reichmeyer -NJ To: "'John Strassner'" , "'Policy Mailing List'" Cc: johns@cisco.com, ed_ellesson@tivoli.com, bwijnen@lucent.com, randy@psg.com Subject: RE: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:35:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D2B.C2255580" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Francis Reichmeyer -NJ 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_01BF8D2B.C2255580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi John, In the agenda under "Polterm Requirements Doc" there is "draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt". Is this a typo? Thanks, -Fran -----Original Message----- From: John Strassner [mailto:jstrassn@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:47 AM To: 'Policy Mailing List' Cc: johns@cisco.com; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com; bwijnen@lucent.com; randy@psg.com Subject: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Hi everyone, here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting of the Policy Framework WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments and suggestions asap. tia, John Day 1 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * Agenda Bashing - Ed (5) Status Update - Ed/John (15) PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15) PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt Polterm Requirements Doc - Mark Stevens (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15) no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending Wrapup - Ed (5) Day 2 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (10) QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt (this will be available by 3/17/00) Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt Wrapup - Ed (5) ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D2B.C2255580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi John,
In the agenda under "Polterm Requirements Doc" there is "draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt".
Is this a typo?
 
Thanks,
-Fran
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Strassner [mailto:jstrassn@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:47 AM
To: 'Policy Mailing List'
Cc: johns@cisco.com; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com; bwijnen@lucent.com; randy@psg.com
Subject: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda

Hi everyone,
 
here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting of the Policy Framework WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments and suggestions asap.
 
tia,
John
 
Day 1
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions I
OPS        policy Policy Framework WG *

  Agenda Bashing - Ed (5)
  Status Update - Ed/John (15)
    PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15)
    PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25)
      file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
    PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10)
      file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt
  Polterm Requirements Doc - Mark Stevens (30)
      file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
  Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15)
      no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending
  Wrapup - Ed (5)

Day 2
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions I
OPS        policy Policy Framework WG *

  QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (10)
    QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25)
        file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt
    QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25)
        file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt
    QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25)
        file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt
        (this will be available by 3/17/00)
    Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (30)
        file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt
    Wrapup - Ed (5)
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D2B.C2255580-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 16:23:15 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09575 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA31442; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:20:09 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id QAA26138; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:19:55 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41688; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:53:07 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA54132; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:52:57 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA26618 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:52:59 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id PAA76124; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:52:57 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 852568A1.0072B203 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:52:46 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: "David Lowndes" Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <852568A1.0072AF14.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:48:09 -0500 Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id QAA09575 OK, how about this? 0x000000060830 ==> May, November, and December Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com "David Lowndes" @raleigh.ibm.com on 03/13/2000 05:42:27 AM Please respond to "David Lowndes" Sent by: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM > 6. Changed encodings for PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask    properties from strings to octet strings. < Can I suggest that the example in 6.5.2 The Property "MonthOfYearMask", is changed from May & August, to something less ambiguous? Dave Lowndes From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 16:42:14 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16729 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:42:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA30888; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:39:00 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id QAA29554; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:35:26 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51090; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:12:01 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38496; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:11:54 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id QAA31952 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:11:56 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA09074 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:11:52 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap (dhcp-vm21-191.cisco.com [171.69.86.191]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA05394; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:11:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <038001bf8ceb$4d512530$bf5645ab@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: "Francis Reichmeyer -NJ" , "'Policy Mailing List'" Cc: , , , References: <6399122981E1D211AB490090271E0AA33C9D55@BMAILNJ> Subject: Re: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:54:42 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_037D_01BF8CEB.4D2951E0" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_037D_01BF8CEB.4D2951E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oops, I need more coffee. thanks for noticing, this was a cut-and-paste = error. I'll send out a change. regards, John ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Francis Reichmeyer -NJ=20 To: 'John Strassner' ; 'Policy Mailing List'=20 Cc: johns@cisco.com ; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com ; bwijnen@lucent.com ; = randy@psg.com=20 Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 8:35 PM Subject: RE: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Hi John, In the agenda under "Polterm Requirements Doc" there is = "draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt". Is this a typo? =20 Thanks, -Fran =20 -----Original Message----- From: John Strassner [mailto:jstrassn@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:47 AM To: 'Policy Mailing List' Cc: johns@cisco.com; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com; bwijnen@lucent.com; = randy@psg.com Subject: Proposed Policy Framework WG Agenda Hi everyone, here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting of the Policy = Framework WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments and = suggestions asap. tia, John Day 1 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * Agenda Bashing - Ed (5) Status Update - Ed/John (15) PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15) PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt Polterm Requirements Doc - Mark Stevens (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15) no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending Wrapup - Ed (5) Day 2 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (10) QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt (this will be available by 3/17/00) Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (30) file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt Wrapup - Ed (5) ------=_NextPart_000_037D_01BF8CEB.4D2951E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
oops, I need more coffee. thanks for noticing, this = was a=20 cut-and-paste error. I'll send out a change.
 
regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Francis=20 Reichmeyer -NJ
To: 'John Strassner' ; 'Policy=20 Mailing List'
Cc: johns@cisco.com ; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com ; bwijnen@lucent.com ; randy@psg.com =
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 = 8:35=20 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed Policy = Framework WG=20 Agenda

Hi=20 John,
In=20 the agenda under "Polterm Requirements Doc" there is=20 "draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt".
Is=20 this a typo?
 
Thanks,
-Fran
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Strassner = [mailto:jstrassn@cisco.com]
S= ent:=20 Monday, March 13, 2000 6:47 AM
To: 'Policy Mailing=20 List'
Cc: johns@cisco.com; ed_ellesson@tivoli.com; = bwijnen@lucent.com; randy@psg.com
Subject: = Proposed=20 Policy Framework WG Agenda

Hi everyone,
 
here is the proposed agenda for the 47th meeting = of the=20 Policy Framework WG meeting in Adelaide. Please send in any comments = and=20 suggestions asap.
 
tia,
John
 
Day 1
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework=20 WG *

  Agenda Bashing - Ed (5)
  Status Update - = Ed/John=20 (15)
    PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob=20 (15)
    PCIM - Final Draft Review - = Bob=20 (25)
     =20 file: = draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
   =20 PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10)
      = file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt
  Polterm=20 Requirements Doc - Mark Stevens (30)
      = file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
  Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken = (15)
      no draft, just = general=20 thoughts; draft is pending
  Wrapup - Ed (5)

Day=20 2
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework=20 WG *

  QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an = intro=20 (10)
    QoS Policy Info Model (new = draft) -=20 John (25)
       =20 file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt
  &n= bsp;=20 QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25)
       =20 file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt
  = ; =20 QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25)
        file: = draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt
        (this = will be=20 available by 3/17/00)
    Requirements and Use = Case - Hugh=20 (30)
        file: = draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt
    Wrapup - Ed = (5)
------=_NextPart_000_037D_01BF8CEB.4D2951E0-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 13 16:42:31 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16828 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA36770; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:38:58 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id QAA33134; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:35:26 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52012; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:17:43 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA46372; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:17:40 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id QAA30032 for ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:17:44 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id QAA74964; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:16:25 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 852568A1.0074D8CC ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:16:16 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: "David Lowndes" Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <852568A1.0074367B.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:04:51 -0500 Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id QAA16828 David, There *is* a reason, but people are undoubtedly going to disagree about whether it's a valid one. The PCIM draft really represents two slightly different things: - a technology-independent model for the IETF - a CIM model developed in the DMTF. For whatever reason (good programming practice, a lack of imagination, whatever), the DMTF has specified that in CIM, Octetstrings always start with a four-octet length field. So in order to faithfully reflect the CIM model, the PCIM draft says this as well. But notice that this does *not* constrain technology-specific realizations of the PCIM to encoding their Octetstrings in this way. So when we next rev the Policy Core LDAP Schema. we'll have the opportunity to decide whether or not to include the length fields in these specific attributes. Including them would presumably simplify implementations that need to map between LDAP and CIM(*). But this would be at a cost (as you point out) of making the attributes carry around some unnecessary "baggage". Regards, Bob (*) Unlike the IETF model, which serves only as a set of guidelines for "real" specifications/implementations such as an LDAP schema, the CIM model is actually implementable/implemented. Consequently, issues of mapping between the CIM model and, say, an LDAP schema must be considered. Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com "David Lowndes" @raleigh.ibm.com on 03/13/2000 09:04:10 AM Please respond to "David Lowndes" Sent by: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM > 6. Changed encodings for PolicyTimePeriodCondition mask    properties from strings to octet strings. < All these changes have a common format with a 4-octet length field specifying the overall length of the attribute value. I can't envisage there being any future requirement to change the length of these items, or to evaluate them by some common code that would benefit from this structure. Therefore it seems superfluous to include the length. Is there a valid reason for the 4-octet length fields? Dave Lowndes From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 05:07:54 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA27684 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:07:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id FAA38664; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:04:19 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id FAA26058; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 05:04:17 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38620; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:40:11 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA36994; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:40:01 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id EAA24780 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:40:02 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk (wssone.bj.co.uk [194.72.164.250]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id EAA12770 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:39:39 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Tue, 14 Mar 00 09:50:08 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by BJEX1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:39:07 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECAFD@BJEX1> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:39:04 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14D0D4DA13094-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D99.24555CB0" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8D99.24555CB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > OK, how about this? 0x000000060830 ==> May, November, and December < Yes, that'll do fine. Cheers Dave ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D99.24555CB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: Summary of changes in -04 draft of the PCIM

> OK, how about this?

  0x000000060830 ==> May, November, and December
<

Yes, that'll do fine.

Cheers
Dave

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8D99.24555CB0-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 08:46:49 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA16228 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id IAA20716; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:40:07 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id IAA33338; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:40:06 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA30674; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:18:34 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA35274; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:18:31 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id IAA33642 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:18:32 -0500 Received: from mailhost.iitb.ac.in (mailhost.iitb.ac.in [202.54.44.115]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id IAA38730 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:18:28 -0500 Received: (qmail 23740 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2000 13:34:50 -0000 Received: from surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (144.16.111.14) by mailhost.iitb.ac.in with SMTP; 14 Mar 2000 13:34:50 -0000 Received: from everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (everest [144.16.111.4]) by surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA21377 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:48:55 +0530 (IST) Received: (from dhiman@localhost) by everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) id SAA16825 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:46:41 +0530 (GMT) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:46:41 +0530 From: Dhiman Barman To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: PFDL Message-Id: <20000314184641.A16590@cse.iitb.ernet.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Dhiman Barman Hi, Has any one developed a most generic Policy Framework Langauge for classification ? Any pointers will be of much help. regards, db From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 08:54:31 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19127 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id IAA09160; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:40:14 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id IAA33394; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:40:13 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52292; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:17:30 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA52282; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:17:27 -0500 Received: from southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.3.209]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id IAA34576 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:17:29 -0500 From: remoore@us.ibm.com Received: from d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com (d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com [9.67.228.36]) by southrelay02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.8m2/NCO v2.06) with SMTP id IAA52524; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:16:12 -0500 Received: by d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 852568A2.0048E481 ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:16:10 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: IBMUS To: "David Lowndes" Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <852568A2.0048E2A0.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:11:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midni ght Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: remoore@us.ibm.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id IAA19127 David, I've been thinking about the question you've raised here, as well as about the "first weekday of the month" question you raised in your other note. First, I'll start with a general comment: while I can appreciate your desire to keep your user interface implementation simple and straightforward, I don't think this is the right design overall. At one end, you're starting with a human user, who is able to think about times and time intervals very flexibly. At the other end, you have the PDP and PEP, which have to turn a policy rule on and off at the correct times. There has to be a mapping *somewhere* between the flexible human representations of times and the concrete behavior of turning the policy rule on and off. In general, I think this "somewhere" should be in the Policy Management Tool. I'm very comfortable making this argument to support using the existing schema in the way I indicated earlier for the "first weekday of the month" schedule. The question of times spanning midnight is a little more of a gray area. I can see the requirement for the type of schedule you're interested in: start at 22:00 on a set of specified days, and stop 6 hours later in each case. It wouldn't be hard to add something to the schema to indicate whether intervals spanning midnight are to be interpreted this way, or in the way they're currently specified in the document. And it wouldn't take a whole lot of additional code for the PDPs and PEPs (whichever one is "consuming" the PTP Condition object in a particular case) to support this new option. Even in this case, though, I think the better place to put the additional code is in the Policy Management Tools: there are fewer of them, they aren't busy with such mundane tasks as routing packets, and it's easier to change them later when new requirements emerge (remember when the futurists predicted that by Y2K we'd all be working 30-hour weeks?:-). Plus, doing it this way lets people like you differentiate your Policy Management Tools from their competitors, by providing more intuitive mappings between human scheduling concepts and the PDP/PEP-friendly scheduling representation in the schema. Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com "David Lowndes" @raleigh.ibm.com on 03/07/2000 09:07:55 AM Please respond to "David Lowndes" Sent by: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: Subject: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning midni ght The draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-03 document says this:    When a range spans midnight, it by definition includes parts of two    successive days.  When one of these days is also selected by either    the MonthOfYearMask, DayOfMonthMask, and/or DayOfWeekMask, but the    other day is not, then the policy is active only during the portion of    the range that falls on the selected day.  For example, if the range    extends from 2100 until 0800, and the day of week mask selects Monday    and Tuesday, then the policy is active during the following three    intervals:        From midnight Sunday until 0800 Monday;        From 2100 Monday until 0800 Tuesday;        From 2100 Tuesday until 23:59:59 Tuesday. This is a logical interpretation of the underlying attributes. However it's not necessarily a logical interpretation for someone who has to enter and maintain this data. I should add that we have a 50:50 split in the interpretation of this in-house. We all agree that the proposed standard is the simple way of interpreting the underlying data, but half of us feel that it's misleading from a user's perspective. Given a slightly simpler example, to allow a policy to start on a Saturday at 22:00 and finish on the Sunday at 4:00, a normal user would expect that entering 2 items: a day mask of Saturday, and a time range of 220000:040000 would fully specify the range. After all, surely that is why you've allowed times to span midnight? Under the proposed standard interpretation this will actually mean that the example policy is valid on 2 discontinuous time periods: An unwanted period:     Saturday 000000:040000 A wanted period:                Saturday 220000:235959 Furthermore, to obtain the user's required time period they have to specify 2 periods: Saturday 220000:235959 and Sunday 000000:040000, which is rather long-winded and not particularly intuitive. If this is case, we can't see the point in allowing times to span midnight. You could argue that it's not the standard's responsibility to be concerned with user-interface issues. However, if the standard makes it impossible to convey users intentions in an unambiguous manner, then we think it is a matter of some concern. Any thoughts? David Lowndes From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 10:20:04 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23556 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:20:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA36612; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:16:41 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA35452; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:16:39 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58266; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:59:11 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA34120; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:58:55 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id IAA34136 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:58:58 -0500 Received: from wssone.bj.co.uk ([194.72.164.250]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id IAA25938 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:57:26 -0500 Received: from 194.72.164.27 by wssone.bj.co.uk with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Tue, 14 Mar 00 14:00:34 -0000 X-Server-Uuid: 1407cc62-e1e1-11d2-808b-0060971f0dc2 Received: by BJEX1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:49:03 -0000 Message-Id: <608D67882786D211B1070090271E4CB96ECB04@BJEX1> From: "David Lowndes" To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning m idnight Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:49:03 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Wss-Id: 14D0998814832-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DBC.0EFE0FC4" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "David Lowndes" 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_01BF8DBC.0EFE0FC4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > First, I'll start with a general comment: while I can appreciate your desire to keep your user interface implementation simple and straightforward, I don't think this is the right design overall. At one end, you're starting with a human user, who is able to think about times and time intervals very flexibly. At the other end, you have the PDP and PEP, which have to turn a policy rule on and off at the correct times. There has to be a mapping *somewhere* between the flexible human representations of times and the concrete behavior of turning the policy rule on and off. In general, I think this "somewhere" should be in the Policy Management Tool. < I'd agree with you in principal Bob, but I don't like it! Every non-standard extension to the schema that vendors have to make just means that there may as well not be a standard. > The question of times spanning midnight is a little more of a gray area. I can see the requirement for the type of schedule you're interested in: start at 22:00 on a set of specified days, and stop 6 hours later in each case. It wouldn't be hard to add something to the schema to indicate whether intervals spanning midnight are to be interpreted this way, or in the way they're currently specified in the document. < OK, that sounds good to me. Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea? > Even in this case, though, I think the better place to put the additional code is in the Policy Management Tools < Again, your point is sensible - if it were possible to reconstitute the original user entry representation from the data in the directory. Unfortunately, I can't see that you can do that without extending the schema and adding extra data to work around this limitation - which I hope you'll agree isn't an elegant solution either. > remember when the futurists predicted that by Y2K we'd all be working 30-hour weeks?:-). < Yes - shame they got it the wrong way around! We were supposed to have the difficult problem of how best to spend all our leisure time - chance would be a fine thing! >Plus, doing it this way lets people like you differentiate your Policy Management Tools from their competitors, by providing more intuitive mappings between human scheduling concepts and the PDP/PEP-friendly scheduling representation in the schema. < Ah, now you're making it sound like a golden opportunity to shine :) Dave ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DBC.0EFE0FC4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Confusion regarding user interpretations for times spanning = midnight

> First, I'll start with a general comment:  = while I can
appreciate your desire to keep your user interface = implementation
simple and straightforward, I don't think this is = the right design
overall.  At one end, you're starting with a = human user, who is able
to think about times and time intervals very = flexibly.  At the other
end, you have the PDP and PEP, which have to turn a = policy rule on
and off at the correct times.  There has to be = a mapping *somewhere*
between the flexible human representations of times = and the concrete
behavior of turning the policy rule on and = off.  In general, I think
this "somewhere" should be in the Policy = Management Tool.
<

I'd agree with you in principal Bob, but I don't like = it!

Every non-standard extension to the schema that = vendors have to make just means that there may as well not be a = standard.

> The question of times spanning midnight is = a
little more of a gray area.  I can see the = requirement for the type
of schedule you're interested in:  start at = 22:00 on a set of
specified days, and stop 6 hours later in each = case.  It wouldn't be
hard to add something to the schema to indicate = whether intervals
spanning midnight are to be interpreted this way, or = in the way
they're currently specified in the document.
<

OK, that sounds good to me.

Does anyone else think this is a good/bad = idea?

> Even in this case, though, I think the
better place to put the additional code is in the = Policy Management
Tools
<

Again, your point is sensible - if it were possible = to reconstitute the original user entry representation from the data in = the directory. Unfortunately, I can't see that you can do that without = extending the schema and adding extra data to work around this = limitation - which I hope you'll agree isn't an elegant solution = either.


> remember when the futurists predicted = that
by Y2K we'd all be working 30-hour weeks?:-).
<

Yes - shame they got it the wrong way around! We were = supposed to have the difficult problem of how best to spend all our = leisure time - chance would be a fine thing!

>Plus, doing it this
way lets people like you differentiate your Policy = Management Tools
from their competitors, by providing more intuitive = mappings between
human scheduling concepts and the PDP/PEP-friendly = scheduling
representation in the schema.
<
Ah, now you're making it sound like a golden = opportunity to shine :)

Dave

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF8DBC.0EFE0FC4-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 11:09:44 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13189 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA43172; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:05:20 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id LAA31594; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:05:19 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA53942; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:57 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA59054; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:55 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA22086 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:56 -0500 Received: from solidum.com (wirespeed.solidum.com [216.13.130.242]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA24546 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:54 -0500 Received: from saturn (pzeldin@saturn.solidum.com [192.168.1.16]) by solidum.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25811; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200003141543.KAA25811@solidum.com> To: Dhiman Barman Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: PFDL In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:46:41 +0530." <20000314184641.A16590@cse.iitb.ernet.in> Comments: Hyperbole mail buttons accepted, v04.17. Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.5) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:43:04 -0500 From: Pavel Zeldin Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Pavel Zeldin Solidum has developed PAX PDL (Packet Description Language) which we offered to Policy workgroup about a year ago. It is a very generic language (the most generic I know of :-)) for packet classification. You can find more info at http://www.solidum.com >>>>> "Dhiman" == Dhiman Barman writes: Dhiman> Hi, Dhiman> Has any one developed a most generic Policy Framework Langauge for Dhiman> classification ? Any pointers will be of much help. Dhiman> regards, Dhiman> db Regards, Pavel ======================================================== Pavel Zeldin | +1-613-244-4804 x28 | pzeldin@solidum.com From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 11:14:03 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14896 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id LAA39136; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:05:35 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id LAA06886; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:05:36 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA30698; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:00:43 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58684; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:00:29 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id KAA31952 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:00:32 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA30486 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:00:27 -0500 Received: from ysnir8000 (telaviv3-dhcp35.cisco.com [144.254.93.163]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA22997; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:59:51 +0200 (IST) From: "Yoram Snir" To: "'Dhiman Barman'" , Subject: RE: PFDL Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:57:58 +0200 Message-Id: <004b01bf8dc5$b0008100$a35dfe90@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <20000314184641.A16590@cse.iitb.ernet.in> Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Yoram Snir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The QoS policy information model http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.t xt defines flexible classification schema. It was delivered for QoS but is valid for other domains. Yoram Snir Cisco Systems Tel. 972-9-9700085 Mobile 972-54-970085 > -----Original Message----- > From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com > [mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of Dhiman Barman > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:17 PM > To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: PFDL > > > Hi, > Has any one developed a most generic Policy Framework Langauge for > classification ? Any pointers will be of much help. > > regards, > db > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 14 13:17:38 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03807 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:17:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id NAA26338; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:13:48 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id NAA28282; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:13:48 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA49534; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:46:12 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA45172; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:46:09 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id MAA31036 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:46:12 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA30894 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:46:10 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap (dhcp-171-71-229-184.cisco.com [171.71.229.184]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA10949; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:45:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <029001bf8d97$c20dddd0$b8e547ab@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: "'Policy Mailing List'" Cc: , , , Subject: Policy Framework WG Meeting, Take Two (with apologies) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:29:11 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_028D_01BF8D97.C1C2F220" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_028D_01BF8D97.C1C2F220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone, here is the proposed agenda for the Policy Framework WG meeting, which = is part of the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide (as opposed to the 47th = meeting of the Policy Framework working group ;-) ). Please send in any = comments and suggestions asap. (Thanks to those of you that have = already, and my apologies for the typos in the first notice). tia, John Day 1 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * Agenda Bashing - Ed (5) Status Update - Ed/John (15) PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15) PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt Polterm Requirements Doc - Fran (15) file: draft-reichmeyer-polterm-terminology-00.txt Policy Framework Status - Mark (15) file: draft-ietf-policy-framework-00.txt Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15) no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending Wrapup - Ed (5) Day 2 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (5) QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt (this will be available by 3/17/00) Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt Policy Scalability - Hugh (10) file: draft-owens-policy-scalability-00.txt Wrapup - Ed (5) ------=_NextPart_000_028D_01BF8D97.C1C2F220 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,
 
here is the proposed agenda for the Policy = Framework WG=20 meeting, which is part of the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide (as opposed = to the=20 47th meeting of the Policy Framework working group ;-) ). Please send in = any=20 comments and suggestions asap. (Thanks to those of you that have = already, and my=20 apologies for the typos in the first notice).
 
tia,
John
 
Day 1
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  Agenda Bashing - Ed (5)
  Status Update - = Ed/John=20 (15)
    PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob = (15)
    PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob=20 (25)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
    = PCS=20 (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt
  Polterm = Requirements=20 Doc - Fran (15)
      file:=20 draft-reichmeyer-polterm-terminology-00.txt
  Policy Framework Status - Mark (15)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-framework-00.txt
  Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken = (15)
      no draft, just = general=20 thoughts; draft is pending
  Wrapup - Ed (5)

Day = 2
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro=20 (5)
    QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) = - John=20 (25)
        = file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt
  &n= bsp; QoS=20 Policy Schema (revision) - John (25)
       =20 file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt
  = ; =20 QoS Capabilities Update - Walter (25)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-qos-cap-info-model-00.txt
        (this = will be=20 available by 3/17/00)
    Requirements and Use Case - = Hugh=20 (25)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt
    Policy Scalability - Hugh=20 (10)
        file: draft= -owens-policy-scalability-00.txt
   =20 Wrapup - Ed (5)
------=_NextPart_000_028D_01BF8D97.C1C2F220-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Mar 17 01:56:55 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA15842 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:56:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA29582; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:52:29 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id BAA19684; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:52:32 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA48648; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:08:07 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA45508; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:08:00 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA34046 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:08:03 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA27008 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:08:02 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap ([171.69.108.130]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA01344; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:06:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <014701bf8f91$abb0e4f0$826c45ab@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: Cc: "'Policy Mailing List'" , , , , Subject: FINAL Policy Agenda Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:50:39 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0144_01BF8F91.AB0D7900" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0144_01BF8F91.AB0D7900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everyone, here is the final agenda for the Policy Framework WG meeting, which is = part of the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide (as opposed to the 47th = meeting of the Policy Framework working group ;-) ). tia, John Day 1 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * Agenda Bashing - Ed (5) Status Update - Ed/John (15) PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob (15) PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt PCS (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10) file: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt Polterm Requirements Doc - Fran (15) file: draft-reichmeyer-polterm-terminology-00.txt Policy Framework Status - Mark (15) file: draft-ietf-policy-framework-00.txt Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken (15) no draft, just general thoughts; draft is pending Wrapup - Ed (5) Day 2 1300-1500 Afternoon Sessions I OPS policy Policy Framework WG * QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro (5) QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt QoS Policy Schema (revision) - John (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt QoS Device Info Model Update - Walter (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-00.txt (this will be available by 3/20/00, note name change) Requirements and Use Case - Hugh (25) file: draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt Policy Scalability - Hugh (10) file: draft-owens-policy-scalability-00.txt Wrapup - Ed (5) ------=_NextPart_000_0144_01BF8F91.AB0D7900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,
 
here is the final agenda for the Policy = Framework WG=20 meeting, which is part of the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide (as opposed = to the=20 47th meeting of the Policy Framework working group ;-) ).
 
tia,
John
 
Day 1
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  Agenda Bashing - Ed (5)
  Status Update - = Ed/John=20 (15)
    PCIM - WG Last Call Results - Bob = (15)
    PCIM - Final Draft Review - Bob=20 (25)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-04.txt
    = PCS=20 (Policy Core Schema) Review - Bob or Lee (10)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-06.txt
  Polterm = Requirements=20 Doc - Fran (15)
      file:=20 draft-reichmeyer-polterm-terminology-00.txt
  Policy Framework Status - Mark (15)
      file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-framework-00.txt
  Policy Monitoring - Bob/Ken = (15)
      no draft, just = general=20 thoughts; draft is pending
  Wrapup - Ed (5)

Day = 2
1300-1500  Afternoon Sessions=20 I
OPS        policy Policy = Framework WG=20 *

  QoS Policy Extensions - John to give an intro=20 (5)
    QoS Policy Info Model (new draft) = - John=20 (25)
        = file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-00.txt
  &n= bsp; QoS=20 Policy Schema (revision) - John (25)
       =20 file: draft-ietf-policy-qos-schema-00.txt
  = ; =20 QoS Device Info Model Update - Walter (25)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-00.txt
        (this = will be=20 available by 3/20/00, note name change)
    = Requirements and=20 Use Case - Hugh (25)
        file:=20 draft-ietf-policy-req-02.txt
    Policy Scalability - Hugh=20 (10)
        file: draft= -owens-policy-scalability-00.txt
   =20 Wrapup - Ed (5)
------=_NextPart_000_0144_01BF8F91.AB0D7900-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Thu Mar 23 17:42:16 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21508 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id RAA35136; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:25:14 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id RAA29358; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:25:12 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA65158; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:15:11 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA25426; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:14:45 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA33936 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:14:46 -0500 Received: from omega.cisco.com (omega.cisco.com [171.69.63.141]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA32240 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:14:42 -0500 Received: from jstrassnlap (sjck-dial-gw5-215.cisco.com [10.19.238.216]) by omega.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA27811; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:14:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <003201bf948f$1997b4b0$d8ee130a@cisco.com> From: "John Strassner" To: Cc: , , , Subject: Draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model will be available 3/23 am Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:14:48 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "John Strassner" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Policy Enthusiasts, a new version of what used to be draft-weiss-policy-device-qos-model will be available at ftpeng.cisco.com/johns (hopefully by the morning of 3/23). The new filename is: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-00.txt This draft incorporates comments and suggestions from the last meeting of the Policy Framework wg plus some new material. It has attempted to reconcile the DiffServ conceptual model, the DiffServ MIB, and the DiffServ PIB. The abstract is: The purpose of this draft is to define an information model that describes the QoS capabilities of different devices. These capabilities define the attributes common to the classification, conditioning, queuing, and forwarding characteristics of network devices running Differentiated Services QoS as well as (in the future) RSVP. This draft is intended to be used with the QoS Policy Information Model [QOSPIM] to model how policies can be defined to manage and configure the QoS mechanisms (e.g., the classification, marking, metering, dropping, queuing, and scheduling capabilities) of devices. Together, these two drafts describe how to write QoS policy rules to configure and manage the QoS mechanisms of devices. This draft, as well as [QOSPIM], are information models. That is, they represent information independent of binding to a specific type of repository. A second draft [QCAPSCH] will be written to provide a mapping of the data contained in this document to a form suitable for implementation in a directory that uses (L)DAP as its access protocol. This draft is similarly paired with the draft specified in [QOSSCH], which describes a mapping of the data in [QOSPIM] to a form suitable for implementation in a directory that uses (L)DAP as its access protocol. These two drafts then describe how to write QoS policy rules that can be used to store information in directories that can be used to configure device QoS mechanisms. Happy reading. regards, John From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 00:55:07 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22049 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA25254; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:48:14 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id AAA33652; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:48:15 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA36916; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:15:12 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA68726; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:14:54 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id AAA26860 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:14:58 -0500 Received: from newshub1-work.home.com (newshub1-work.home.com [24.0.0.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id AAA30662 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:14:54 -0500 Received: from omniplex.mcquillan.com ([209.125.158.40]) by newshub1-work.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000327051450.GCWB28334.newshub1-work.home.com@omniplex.mcquillan.com> for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:14:50 -0800 Received: from dhcp-192-68.ietf.connect.com.au by omniplex.mcquillan.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1457.7) id 1TYH42B3; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:12:39 -0500 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000326234400.00a7b710@mail.ivyplan.com> X-Sender: joel@omniplex.mcquillan.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:12:03 -0500 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Policy Terminology: Policy Domain Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Joel M. Halpern" The presentation today mentioned that there was some ambiguity to the definition of "policy domain". I have a question in that regard. The definition of Policy Domain says "A policy domain is a collection of objects that have been explicitly grouped together in order to administratively share the same policies." Later on, in talking about nested policy domains the definition says: "Note, however, that a nested domain is not necessarily a subset of the parent domain, because an object in the nested domain may not be a direct member of its parent domain." What does this mean? If you have a nested policy domain, do all of the policies of the parent domain apply to it, or not? From the first section, and from trying to understand the purpose of nesting, I would expect all of the policies of a domain to apply to all domains nested within it. Either I have completely misunderstood the point of the sentence about "is not necessarily a subset of the parent domain", or else these policies are not intended to apply to the nested domains. Can someone please tell me explicitly whether we intend for child policies domains to inherent the policies of their parent domains, and then explain the sentence quoted above in the context of the answer? Thank you, Joel M. Halpern From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 02:25:41 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA09958 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id CAA28304; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:16:21 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id CAA13462; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 02:16:20 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58628; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:52:00 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA72186; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:51:56 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA34354 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:52:01 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA24010 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:51:57 -0500 Received: from Shai's (dhcp-192-58.ietf.connect.com.au [169.208.192.58]) by bmailnj.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id HQSZ457C; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:46:04 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> X-Sender: herzog@209.3.6.76 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:51:28 -0500 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Shai Herzog Subject: PolTerm Draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Shai Herzog Based on the discussion today at the Policy WG, here is my text regarding policy terminology: - Policy resolution says: "When presented with policies from multiple policy domains, through which a communication must pass, it is necessary to find a common policy supported by all the domains". I don't remember seeing anywhere (in any of the architectural docs) such a weird End-to-End policy consensus (negotiations, resolution, whatever). Such an approach can only makes sense for micro-flows (RSVP style) and I don't think anyone suggest resolving policy across multiple domains for each micro flow. The model we are familiar assume bilateral policy negotiation/resolution. I suggest the following text instead: "Policy negotiations/resolution: The process by which neighboring policy domains, each with it's own controlling policy communicate to find a common policy satisfactory to both (if available). A cascading set of bilateral policy negotiations may, but not necessarily produce meaningful end-to-end policy." - Policy Control: usually used to denote "policy authority over an enforcement device". (e.g., the PDP performs policy control over the PEP). Interestingly enough, in the term "Policy evaluation" the term "policy control" is used in its proper way (unlike this definition... ;-) - Policy conflict resolution: There are two different terms regarding conflicts: conflict avoidance and conflict resolution. Avoidance: evaluate policy in a way that stops after finding one match, therefore, the system never knows whether there was (or wasn't) another match with a conflicting action. Detection/Resolution: This is a more complicated process where evaluation finds multiple matches, with conflicting actions, and there is a need to decide which of the conflicting actions should govern. There are multiple ways for conflict resolution, but they do NOT involve simple rule match priority (since this would be the equivalent of the avoidance thing). Instead one can evaluate "best match" (e.g., IP Address match), "union of actions" (e.g., RSVP Flowspec merging), "most restrictive", "most liberal" etc. - The term "Policy feasibility" is kind of vague. One person's "safely" is another person's "bad". I suggest that there is no objective way of defining it. In fact, I believe there isn't any need for this term and and that this is a by-product of a system quality, rather than a "policy process". In the spirit of Keith's suggestion regarding the three proposed levels of policies: Administrator-defined, Device-independent, Device-dependent policy. I'd like to propose using Abstract, device-free Policy. Standard Device Policy Proprietary Device Policy Shai __________________________________________________________________ Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 05:09:33 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13499 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:09:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id FAA18374; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:04:59 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id FAA31986; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:04:57 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA43056; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:44:32 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA26300; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:44:20 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id EAA24220 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:44:20 -0500 Received: from mailhost.iitb.ac.in (mailhost.iitb.ac.in [202.54.44.115]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id EAA23494 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:43:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 12113 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2000 10:00:23 -0000 Received: from surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (144.16.111.14) by mailhost.iitb.ac.in with SMTP; 27 Mar 2000 10:00:23 -0000 Received: from everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (everest [144.16.111.4]) by surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06174 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:13:46 +0530 (IST) Received: (from dhiman@localhost) by everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA00359 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:11:24 +0530 (GMT) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:11:24 +0530 From: Dhiman Barman To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: COPS Implementation Message-Id: <20000327151124.A29273@cse.iitb.ernet.in> References: <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76>; from Shai Herzog on Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 01:51:28AM -0500 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Dhiman Barman Hi, May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in practice. Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. -- Cheers Dhiman Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 05:23:46 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA18336 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:22:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id FAA19556; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:05:16 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id FAA24858; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:05:15 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA46434; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:37:19 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41292; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:37:15 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id EAA29650 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:37:15 -0500 Received: from groucho.doc.ic.ac.uk (IDENT:root@groucho.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.14.3]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id EAA23340 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:37:14 -0500 Received: from dse-pc-mss.doc.ic.ac.uk (dse-pc-mss.doc.ic.ac.uk [146.169.14.135]) by groucho.doc.ic.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA31108; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:37:06 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000327101150.00b10100@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> X-Sender: mss@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:33:51 +0100 To: "Joel M. Halpern" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Morris Sloman Subject: Re: Policy Terminology: Policy Domain Cc: nd@doc.ic.ac.uk, e.c.lupu@doc.ic.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000326234400.00a7b710@mail.ivyplan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Morris Sloman At 06:12 27/03/00, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >The presentation today mentioned that there was some ambiguity to the >definition of "policy domain". I have a question in that regard. > >The definition of Policy Domain says > "A policy domain is a collection of objects that have been > explicitly grouped together in order to administratively share the > same policies." >Later on, in talking about nested policy domains the definition says: > "Note, however, that a nested domain is not necessarily a subset of the > parent domain, because an object in the nested domain may not be a > direct > member of its parent domain." > >What does this mean? If you have a nested policy domain, do all of the >policies of the parent domain apply to it, or not? From the first >section, and from trying to understand the purpose of nesting, I would >expect all of the policies of a domain to apply to all domains nested >within it. Either I have completely misunderstood the point of the >sentence about "is not necessarily a subset of the parent domain", or else >these policies are not intended to apply to the nested domains. Can >someone please tell me explicitly whether we intend for child policies >domains to inherent the policies of their parent domains, and then explain >the sentence quoted above in the context of the answer? > >Thank you, >Joel M. Halpern If you think of a domain as being similar to a file system directory then the above may be easier to follow. Members of a sub-directory are not members of a parent directory. A policy applying to a domain should, by default, propagate to nested domains. Consider domain D1 with member objects a, b, c and nested domains D1, D2. D2 contains member objects d, e and D3 contains member objects f, g. {a, b, c} are direct members of D1 {d, e, f, g) are indirect members of D1 When determining the objects to which a policy applies you have to 'flatten' the domain structure to determine the set of objects in the scope of the policy. A policy applying to D1 will propagate to nested domain and hence apply to objects {a, b, c, d, e, f, g} A policy applying to D2 will only apply to objects {d, e} In set theory there would be no distinction between direct and indirect members. Nested domains can be used to group objects to reflect LAN structures, Organisational structures etc. In our policy notation we provide the option of limiting the propagation of policies to nested domains (if that is required) so it is possible to specify a policy applying to D1 that only applies to objects {a, b, c}. Morris Sloman From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 10:01:08 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11318 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA33898; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:29:11 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA28866; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:29:11 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA48050; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:44 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA50850; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:41 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id JAA24220 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:43 -0500 Received: from squatch.ir.bbn.com (squatch.ir.bbn.com [192.1.98.166]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id JAA35832 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:03:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 57818 invoked by uid 20813); 27 Mar 2000 14:03:26 -0000 Date: 27 Mar 2000 14:03:26 -0000 Message-Id: <20000327140326.57817.qmail@squatch.ir.bbn.com> From: Matthew Condell To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: PolTerm Draft Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Matthew Condell >- Policy resolution says: > > "When presented with policies from multiple policy domains, through which > a communication must pass, it is necessary to find a common policy > supported by all the domains". > > I don't remember seeing anywhere (in any of the architectural docs) > such a weird End-to-End policy consensus (negotiations, resolution, > whatever). Such an approach can only makes sense for micro-flows > (RSVP style) and I don't think anyone suggest resolving policy across > multiple domains for each micro flow. The model we are familiar assume > bilateral policy negotiation/resolution. I suggest the following text > instead: End-to-End policy resolution is is used in the security policy management area, which is why this term is included in the draft. Matt Condell BBN Technologies From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 19:04:30 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27529 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:04:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id SAA30030; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id SAA33470; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:58:35 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA28038; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:31:10 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA60534; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:31:06 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id SAA24218 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:31:10 -0500 Received: from newshub1-work.home.com (newshub1-work.home.com [24.0.0.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id SAA33320 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:31:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from omniplex.mcquillan.com ([209.125.158.40]) by newshub1-work.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000327233109.HMZW28334.newshub1-work.home.com@omniplex.mcquillan.com> for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:31:09 -0800 Received: from dhcp-192-68.ietf.connect.com.au by omniplex.mcquillan.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1457.7) id 1TYH42JF; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:29:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000327182251.00a797a0@omniplex.mcquillan.com> X-Sender: joel@omniplex.mcquillan.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:29:53 -0500 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Policy Terminology: Policy Domain In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000327101150.00b10100@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> References: <4.2.2.20000326234400.00a7b710@mail.ivyplan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Joel M. Halpern" Sorry to copy so much, but all the comments are up here. The rest is for context. Morris, I have two issues with what your clarification: 1) I believe the text that says "may not be a direct member of its parent" is completely misleading. Most readers will, after scratching their head, conclude that direct does not change the meaning and that the sentence says that the members of the child are not members of the parent. But for policy purposes they are members. This is because there is no important "collection criteria" other than whether there is common policy. 2) I believe that having provision for a child domain to not inherit the parent's policies is counter-productive. It will lead to users mis-understanding the impact of behavior. If the child is not inheriting the policies of the parent, why is it a nested domain? Just make it separate. If you are trying to use the domain nesting to keep human readable information (engineering is part of corporate, but has different policies from corporate), nesting is not a good way to achieve that. This is because if the policies are not inherited, then the relationship is not a policy relationship. Thus, it should be represented some other way than the nesting of policy domains. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 10:33 AM 3/27/00 +0100, you wrote: >At 06:12 27/03/00, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>The presentation today mentioned that there was some ambiguity to the >>definition of "policy domain". I have a question in that regard. >> >>The definition of Policy Domain says >> "A policy domain is a collection of objects that have been >> explicitly grouped together in order to administratively share the >> same policies." >>Later on, in talking about nested policy domains the definition says: >> "Note, however, that a nested domain is not necessarily a subset of the >> parent domain, because an object in the nested domain may not be a >> direct >> member of its parent domain." >>[My question asked what this was supposed to mean.] > > >If you think of a domain as being similar to a file system directory then >the above may be easier to follow. Members of a sub-directory are not >members of a parent directory. > >A policy applying to a domain should, by default, propagate to nested domains. > >Consider domain D1 with member objects a, b, c and nested domains D1, D2. > >D2 contains member objects d, e and D3 contains member objects f, g. > >{a, b, c} are direct members of D1 >{d, e, f, g) are indirect members of D1 > >When determining the objects to which a policy applies you have to >'flatten' the domain structure to determine the set of objects in the >scope of the policy. > >A policy applying to D1 will propagate to nested domain and hence apply to >objects {a, b, c, d, e, f, g} > >A policy applying to D2 will only apply to objects {d, e} > >In set theory there would be no distinction between direct and indirect >members. > >Nested domains can be used to group objects to reflect LAN structures, >Organisational structures etc. > >In our policy notation we provide the option of limiting the propagation >of policies to nested domains (if that is required) so it is possible to >specify a policy applying to D1 that only applies to objects {a, b, c}. > > >Morris Sloman From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 19:17:49 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27698 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id TAA41998; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:12:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id TAA28302; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:12:06 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA48926; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:43:12 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57606; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:43:08 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id RAA30336 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:43:11 -0500 Received: from csi-admin1.cisco.com (csi-admin1.cisco.com [144.254.91.12]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id RAA17578 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:43:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from yramberg-hpxu (telaviv3-dhcp65.cisco.com [144.254.93.193]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA10440; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:55:05 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000327174309.00bb65e0@csi-admin1.cisco.com> X-Sender: yramberg@csi-admin1.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:47:31 -0600 To: Dhiman Barman , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Yoram Ramberg Subject: Re: COPS Implementation In-Reply-To: <20000327151124.A29273@cse.iitb.ernet.in> References: <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Yoram Ramberg Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, a COPS based QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the Cisco WEB site (or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is the only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to being a real commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. *Yoram At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: >Hi, > May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in practice. >Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > >-- >Cheers >Dhiman > >Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 20:26:01 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28570 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:26:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id UAA60894; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:19:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id UAA28290; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:19:13 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA53006; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:59 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA23804; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:55 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id TAA27040 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:52:00 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id TAA33524 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from Shai's (dhcp-192-58.ietf.connect.com.au [169.208.192.58]) by bmailnj.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id HQSZ46RR; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:46:29 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000327194533.00b1e910@209.3.6.76> X-Sender: herzog@209.3.6.76 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:55 -0500 To: Matthew Condell , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Shai Herzog Subject: Re: PolTerm Draft In-Reply-To: <20000327140326.57817.qmail@squatch.ir.bbn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Shai Herzog I see. But this is still broken... ;-) 1. We should then add a "policy negotiations" term for QoS (given that QoS does not assume or encourage E-2-E negotiations). 2. We should explain the context of this E-2-E resolution (security) 3. Have you evaluated the implications of such E-2-E approach? When traffic crosses N domains, are you suggesting that all N domains find a common ground? Sounds awfully non-scalable to me. I always thought QoS is SIMPLER than security, and I can't see how this would scale for QoS, not to mention security. Do you have an example? Shai At 02:03 PM 3/27/00, Matthew Condell wrote: > >- Policy resolution says: > > > > "When presented with policies from multiple policy domains, through which > > a communication must pass, it is necessary to find a common policy > > supported by all the domains". > > > > I don't remember seeing anywhere (in any of the architectural docs) > > such a weird End-to-End policy consensus (negotiations, resolution, > > whatever). Such an approach can only makes sense for micro-flows > > (RSVP style) and I don't think anyone suggest resolving policy across > > multiple domains for each micro flow. The model we are familiar assume > > bilateral policy negotiation/resolution. I suggest the following text > > instead: > >End-to-End policy resolution is is used in the security policy >management area, which is why this term is included in the draft. > >Matt Condell >BBN Technologies __________________________________________________________________ Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 20:27:33 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28599 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:27:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id UAA27890; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id UAA31630; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:19:15 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA54138; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:52:10 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA42798; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:52:03 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id TAA32586 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:52:07 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id TAA34534 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:51:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from Shai's (dhcp-192-58.ietf.connect.com.au [169.208.192.58]) by bmailnj.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id HQSZ46RP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:46:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000327192739.00b1d750@209.3.6.76> X-Sender: herzog@209.3.6.76 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:31:33 -0500 To: Yoram Ramberg , Dhiman Barman , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Shai Herzog Subject: Re: COPS Implementation In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000327174309.00bb65e0@csi-admin1.cisco.com> References: <20000327151124.A29273@cse.iitb.ernet.in> <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Shai Herzog At 05:47 PM 3/27/00, Yoram Ramberg wrote: >Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, a COPS based >QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the Cisco WEB site >(or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is the >only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to being a real >commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports >COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. IPHighway OPS 2.0 policy server has built-in COPS support. We also offer a royalty free COPS client code for embedded devices. Both products are in full release (not beta). Shai >*Yoram > >At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: >>Hi, >> May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in practice. >>Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. >> >>-- >>Cheers >>Dhiman >> >>Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. __________________________________________________________________ Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 20:57:12 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29405 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id UAA39436; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:50:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id UAA28878; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:50:47 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA48822; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:23:26 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA47022; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:23:23 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id UAA30428 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:23:29 -0500 Received: from mail.webstream.net ([63.77.144.9]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id UAA52638 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:23:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from deterministic ([205.179.45.178]) by mail.webstream.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id net; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:24:59 -0500 Message-Id: <009201bf9854$836fa4b0$b22db3cd@DeterministicNetworks.com> From: stevej@DeterministicNetworks.com (SteveJ) To: "Shai Herzog" , "Yoram Ramberg" , "Dhiman Barman" , References: <20000327151124.A29273@cse.iitb.ernet.in><4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76><4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> <4.3.1.2.20000327192739.00b1d750@209.3.6.76> Subject: Re: COPS Implementation Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:25:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: stevej@DeterministicNetworks.com (SteveJ) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit But not to everyone! ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Jackowski President/CEO Deterministic Networks, Inc. 1341 Pacific Avenue Santa Cruz, Ca 95060 Office: (831) 421-0388 x18 Home office: (831) 426-4001 Mobile: (408) 813-6294 Fax: (831) 421-0394 www.DeterministicNetworks.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Shai Herzog To: Yoram Ramberg ; Dhiman Barman ; Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:31 PM Subject: Re: COPS Implementation > At 05:47 PM 3/27/00, Yoram Ramberg wrote: > >Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, a COPS based > >QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the Cisco WEB site > >(or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is the > >only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to being a real > >commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports > >COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. > > IPHighway OPS 2.0 policy server has built-in COPS support. > We also offer a royalty free COPS client code for embedded devices. > > Both products are in full release (not beta). > > Shai > > > >*Yoram > > > >At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: > >>Hi, > >> May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in practice. > >>Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > >> > >>-- > >>Cheers > >>Dhiman > >> > >>Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 > 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 > Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 > > > > > > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Mar 27 21:48:57 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00904 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id VAA46300; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:43:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id VAA14132; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:43:20 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA49940; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:13:09 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58002; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:13:01 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id VAA27966 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:13:06 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id VAA36416 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from Shai's (dhcp-192-58.ietf.connect.com.au [169.208.192.58]) by bmailnj.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id HQSZ46TM; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:07:37 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000327210227.00b40680@209.3.6.76> X-Sender: herzog@209.3.6.76 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:12:49 -0500 To: stevej@DeterministicNetworks.com (SteveJ), "Yoram Ramberg" , "Dhiman Barman" , From: Shai Herzog Subject: Re: COPS Implementation In-Reply-To: <009201bf9854$836fa4b0$b22db3cd@DeterministicNetworks.com> References: <20000327151124.A29273@cse.iitb.ernet.in> <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> <4.3.1.2.20000327011540.00aecc30@209.3.6.76> <4.3.1.2.20000327192739.00b1d750@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Shai Herzog ...Previously, in pre-release we limited distribution to beta site/testers, but it is widely available now. We can certainly provide you with it now. Shai At 05:25 PM 3/27/00, SteveJ wrote: >But not to everyone! > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Steve Jackowski >President/CEO >Deterministic Networks, Inc. >1341 Pacific Avenue >Santa Cruz, Ca 95060 > >Office: (831) 421-0388 x18 >Home office: (831) 426-4001 >Mobile: (408) 813-6294 >Fax: (831) 421-0394 >www.DeterministicNetworks.com >----- Original Message ----- >From: Shai Herzog >To: Yoram Ramberg ; Dhiman Barman >; >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:31 PM >Subject: Re: COPS Implementation > > > > At 05:47 PM 3/27/00, Yoram Ramberg wrote: > > >Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, a COPS based > > >QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the Cisco WEB site > > >(or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is >the > > >only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to being a real > > >commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports > > >COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. > > > > IPHighway OPS 2.0 policy server has built-in COPS support. > > We also offer a royalty free COPS client code for embedded devices. > > > > Both products are in full release (not beta). > > > > Shai > > > > > > >*Yoram > > > > > >At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >> May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in >practice. > > >>Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > > >> > > >>-- > > >>Cheers > > >>Dhiman > > >> > > >>Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 > > 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 > > Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 28 06:40:03 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19840 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id GAA45756; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:34:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id GAA32188; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:34:43 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA56010; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:04:44 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38540; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:04:37 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id GAA37558 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:04:37 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([199.103.238.97]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id GAA16774 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from eh6mq5 ([10.100.1.8]) by mail.toplayer.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA17885; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:03:18 -0500 From: "Jon Sjoberg" To: "Shai Herzog" , "SteveJ" , "Yoram Ramberg" , "Dhiman Barman" , Subject: RE: COPS Implementation Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:11:19 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000327210227.00b40680@209.3.6.76> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Jon Sjoberg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When we say "COPS", are we talking just the base protocol, or "for RSVP" or "for provisioning"? BTW, Nortel Networks was shipping COPS for diff-serv (before it became provisioning) last year some time in the AN and BN product lines. >-----Original Message----- >From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com >[mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of Shai Herzog >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:13 PM >To: SteveJ; Yoram Ramberg; Dhiman Barman; policy@raleigh.ibm.com >Subject: Re: COPS Implementation > > >...Previously, in pre-release we limited distribution to beta >site/testers, but it is widely available now. > >We can certainly provide you with it now. > >Shai > > >At 05:25 PM 3/27/00, SteveJ wrote: >>But not to everyone! >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>Steve Jackowski >>President/CEO >>Deterministic Networks, Inc. >>1341 Pacific Avenue >>Santa Cruz, Ca 95060 >> >>Office: (831) 421-0388 x18 >>Home office: (831) 426-4001 >>Mobile: (408) 813-6294 >>Fax: (831) 421-0394 >>www.DeterministicNetworks.com >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Shai Herzog >>To: Yoram Ramberg ; Dhiman Barman >>; >>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:31 PM >>Subject: Re: COPS Implementation >> >> >> > At 05:47 PM 3/27/00, Yoram Ramberg wrote: >> > >Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, >a COPS based >> > >QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the >Cisco WEB site >> > >(or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is >>the >> > >only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to >being a real >> > >commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports >> > >COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. >> > >> > IPHighway OPS 2.0 policy server has built-in COPS support. >> > We also offer a royalty free COPS client code for embedded devices. >> > >> > Both products are in full release (not beta). >> > >> > Shai >> > >> > >> > >*Yoram >> > > >> > >At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: >> > >>Hi, >> > >> May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in >>practice. >> > >>Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. >> > >> >> > >>-- >> > >>Cheers >> > >>Dhiman >> > >> >> > >>Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. >> > >> > >> > __________________________________________________________________ >> > Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 >> > 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 >> > Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >__________________________________________________________________ >Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 >55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 >Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 > > > > > > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 28 07:18:23 2000 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.236]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20081 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id HAA46530; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:13:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id HAA37208; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:13:52 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57170; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:45:22 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA53544; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:45:16 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id GAA35384 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:45:16 -0500 Received: from mailhost.iitb.ac.in (mailhost.iitb.ac.in [202.54.44.115]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with SMTP id GAA39450 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16954 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2000 12:01:54 -0000 Received: from surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (144.16.111.14) by mailhost.iitb.ac.in with SMTP; 28 Mar 2000 12:01:54 -0000 Received: from everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (dhiman@everest [144.16.111.4]) by surya.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10595; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:15:13 +0530 (IST) Received: (from dhiman@localhost) by everest.cse.iitb.ernet.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA09373; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:12:54 +0530 (GMT) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:12:54 +0530 From: Dhiman Barman To: Jon Sjoberg Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: COPS Implementation Message-Id: <20000328171254.A7695@cse.iitb.ernet.in> References: <4.3.1.2.20000327210227.00b40680@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Jon Sjoberg on Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:11:19AM -0800 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Dhiman Barman Jon Sjoberg claims the following: > When we say "COPS", are we talking just the base protocol, or "for RSVP" or > "for provisioning"? > > BTW, Nortel Networks was shipping COPS for diff-serv (before it became > provisioning) last year some time in the AN and BN product lines. What I intended to know was about the base protocol. Better it would be even, if I can get the "provisioning" features also. Cheers Dhiman Let the machine do the dirty work. - Elements of Programming Style From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Mar 28 09:16:44 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21219 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with ESMTP id JAA60708; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id JAA32586; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 09:10:30 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA61202; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:40:44 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA51974; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:40:41 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id IAA30448 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:40:42 -0500 Received: from squatch.ir.bbn.com (squatch.ir.bbn.com [192.1.98.166]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7RTP-FW1.1) with SMTP id IAA59284 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:40:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 62406 invoked by uid 20813); 28 Mar 2000 13:40:26 -0000 Date: 28 Mar 2000 13:40:26 -0000 Message-Id: <20000328134026.62405.qmail@squatch.ir.bbn.com> From: Matthew Condell To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: PolTerm Draft Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Matthew Condell >1. We should then add a "policy negotiations" term for QoS (given that > QoS does not assume or encourage E-2-E negotiations). >2. We should explain the context of this E-2-E resolution (security) The purpose of the terminology draft is to present terms that are used in different policy areas, so that the terms are used consistently across different areas. It is not suggesting any architecture or imposing any requirements on any area. It is just presenting terminology to use in any area that requires it. >3. Have you evaluated the implications of such E-2-E approach? When > traffic crosses N domains, are you suggesting that all N domains > find a common ground? Sounds awfully non-scalable to me. > > I always thought QoS is SIMPLER than security, and I can't see how > this would scale for QoS, not to mention security. The purpose of E-2-E policy resolution for security is to address scalability problems with IPsec. >Do you have an example? Try draft-richardson-spsp-requirements-00.txt and draft-keromytis-spsp-arch-00.txt A draft describing a solution was submitted to the IPsec WG, but that has recently expired. A revised version will be submitted to the IPSP WG in the near future. Matt Condell BBN Technologies From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 29 11:00:21 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22140 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id KAA50442; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:52:37 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id KAA28436; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:52:31 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57684; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:14:53 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA57676; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:14:50 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA35902 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:56:59 -0500 Received: from neodymium.btinternet.com (neodymium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.83]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA41660 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:56:54 -0500 Received: from [212.140.201.135] (helo=HomePC) by neodymium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 12a32M-00068t-00; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:56:30 +0100 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000328211149.00a3ece0@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> X-Sender: mss@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:58:50 +0100 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Morris Sloman Subject: Re: Policy Terminology: Policy Domain Cc: e.c.lupu@doc.ic.ac.uk, nd@doc.ic.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000327182251.00a797a0@omniplex.mcquillan.com> References: <4.3.1.2.20000327101150.00b10100@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> <4.2.2.20000326234400.00a7b710@mail.ivyplan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Morris Sloman At 00:29 28/03/00 , you wrote: >Morris, I have two issues with what your clarification: >1) I believe the text that says "may not be a direct member of its parent" >is completely misleading. Most readers will, after scratching their head, >conclude that direct does not change the meaning and that the sentence >says that the members of the child are not members of the parent. But for >policy purposes they are members. This is because there is no important >"collection criteria" other than whether there is common policy. Joel Everyone is used to hierarchical directory structures. Domains are very similar. I am not sure what you mean by a "collection criteria". the membership of a domain is not defined by a predicate eg a domain is not defined by all files of type .doc. A manager may choose to explicitly include all files of type .doc into a particular domain if there is a reason to do so. The domain structure may be defined in order to support partitioning of responsibility, the many different types of policy ( authorisation, QoS, configuration ......) which can apply to objects. >2) I believe that having provision for a child domain to not inherit the >parent's policies is counter-productive. It will lead to users >mis-understanding the impact of behavior. Our notation specifies quite clearly whether a policy propagates to nested domains so it is not difficult to understand. This just reflect user requirements - eg you may wish to specify a backup policy that backs up a top level domain in one place but a different type of policy for a sub-tree structure of domains within the top level one. > If the child is not inheriting the policies of the parent, why is it a > nested domain? Just make it separate. this may not be practical - a domain structure may need to reflect organisation structure. Separating the structure requires repeating the policies. I want to specify a policy X for all people in the organisation O. I want another policy Y that applies only to Department D1 within the organisation, and policy Z that applies to Group G1 within D1 I can do this quite easily if D1 is a sub-domain of O, and G1 is a subdomain of G1. I only need to specify 3 policies. > If you are trying to use the domain nesting to keep human readable > information (engineering is part of corporate, but has different policies > from corporate), nesting is not a good way to achieve that. We think it achieves exactly that, because that is the way people will specify policies - There are corporate policies eg access to services, available to everyone and some specific to Engineering. Corporate policies should also apply to Engineering. > This is because if the policies are not inherited, then the relationship > is not a policy relationship. There is not just one policy applying to the domain structure - there will be many different ones. In most cases, policies propagate but you can limit the propagation if there is a need to do so. You may also have to set up a domain sub-structure specifically for a particular type of policy. We allow objects to be members of multiple domains - ie overlapping domains. > Thus, it should be represented some other way than the nesting of > policy domains. Why invent something new when you have a well understood, simple concept of hierarchical nested domains ( cf directories) that serve the purpose very well? Morris __________________________________________________ Professor Morris Sloman Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine Department of Computing 180 Queen's Gate London SW7 2BZ, U.K. Phone: +44 20 7594 8279 Fax: +44 20 7581 8024 Email: m.sloman@doc.ic.ac.uk WWW: http://www-dse.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mss From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 29 12:11:01 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22749 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA07096; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:01:53 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id MAA28558; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:01:53 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA21426; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:36:30 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58334; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:36:12 -0500 Received: from fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id BAA35926 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:58:06 -0500 Received: from bmailnj.iphighway.com ([209.3.6.76]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA46274 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:58:03 -0500 Received: from Shai's (slip202-135-78-41.ad.au.ibm.net [202.135.78.41]) by bmailnj.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id H62BH271; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:57:50 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000329015126.00b01e30@209.3.6.76> X-Sender: herzog@209.3.6.76 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:57:22 -0500 To: "Jon Sjoberg" , "SteveJ" , "Yoram Ramberg" , "Dhiman Barman" , From: Shai Herzog Subject: RE: COPS Implementation In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.1.2.20000327210227.00b40680@209.3.6.76> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Shai Herzog At 06:11 AM 3/28/00, Jon Sjoberg wrote: >When we say "COPS", are we talking just the base protocol, or "for RSVP" or >"for provisioning"? COPS-PR (off course, COPS-PR is still a moving target, but it seem to converge nicely ;-) >BTW, Nortel Networks was shipping COPS for diff-serv (before it became >provisioning) last year some time in the AN and BN product lines. Yeah, I'm aware of it. The more, the merrier. ;-) The convergence of COPS-PR + the interops done two weeks ago should get us closer to production level interoperable implementations. Shai > >-----Original Message----- > >From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com > >[mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of Shai Herzog > >Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 6:13 PM > >To: SteveJ; Yoram Ramberg; Dhiman Barman; policy@raleigh.ibm.com > >Subject: Re: COPS Implementation > > > > > >...Previously, in pre-release we limited distribution to beta > >site/testers, but it is widely available now. > > > >We can certainly provide you with it now. > > > >Shai > > > > > >At 05:25 PM 3/27/00, SteveJ wrote: > >>But not to everyone! > >> > >> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>Steve Jackowski > >>President/CEO > >>Deterministic Networks, Inc. > >>1341 Pacific Avenue > >>Santa Cruz, Ca 95060 > >> > >>Office: (831) 421-0388 x18 > >>Home office: (831) 426-4001 > >>Mobile: (408) 813-6294 > >>Fax: (831) 421-0394 > >>www.DeterministicNetworks.com > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Shai Herzog > >>To: Yoram Ramberg ; Dhiman Barman > >>; > >>Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:31 PM > >>Subject: Re: COPS Implementation > >> > >> > >> > At 05:47 PM 3/27/00, Yoram Ramberg wrote: > >> > >Cisco is about to ship an early release of its COPS-QPM 1.0, > >a COPS based > >> > >QoS policy manager. You can probably find some info on the > >Cisco WEB site > >> > >(or at least find an address to send questions). I don't think this is > >>the > >> > >only offering out there, but I hear it is the one closest to > >being a real > >> > >commercial product. Note that only a small set of devices now supports > >> > >COPS. It is expected to proliferate in the coming months and years. > >> > > >> > IPHighway OPS 2.0 policy server has built-in COPS support. > >> > We also offer a royalty free COPS client code for embedded devices. > >> > > >> > Both products are in full release (not beta). > >> > > >> > Shai > >> > > >> > > >> > >*Yoram > >> > > > >> > >At 03:11 PM 3/27/00 +0530, Dhiman Barman wrote: > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >> May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation in > >>practice. > >> > >>Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >> > >>Cheers > >> > >>Dhiman > >> > >> > >> > >>Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. > >> > > >> > > >> > __________________________________________________________________ > >> > Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 > >> > 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 > >> > Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 > >55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 > >Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ Shai Herzog, Founder & CTO IPHighway Inc. Tel : (914) 654-4810 55 New York Avenue Main: (508) 620-1141 Framingham, MA 01701 Fax : (212) 656-1006 From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 29 16:26:05 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24523 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:26:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id QAA29316; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:19:39 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id QAA34594; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:19:41 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA41610; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:47:29 -0500 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA43382; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:47:25 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id PAA24658 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:47:28 -0500 Received: from thalia.fm.intel.com (thalia.fm.intel.com [132.233.247.11]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA41552 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:47:24 -0500 Received: from SMTP (fmsmsxvs05-1.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.205]) by thalia.fm.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.19 2000/01/29 00:15:43 dmccart Exp $) with SMTP id UAA19145; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:48:01 GMT Received: from fmsmsx28.FM.INTEL.COM ([132.233.48.28]) by 132.233.48.205 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:47:17 0000 (GMT) Received: by fmsmsx28.fm.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:47:15 -0800 Message-Id: <4A043A1FE4B2D111AC3F00A0C96B513304840F01@fmsmsx37.fm.intel.com> From: "Fenger, Russell J" To: "'Dhiman Barman'" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: COPS Implementation Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:47:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Fenger, Russell J" Intel's PBM technology is already used in HP OpenView PolicyXpert which has COPS and COPS for RSVP support. We've also implemented a COPS SDK separately that supports COPS base protocol and RSVP extensions for COPS. This SDK is designed to allow additional extensions such as COPS-PR to be added. Russ > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhiman Barman [mailto:dhiman@cse.iitb.ernet.in] > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:41 AM > To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: COPS Implementation > > > Hi, > May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation > in practice. > Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > > -- > Cheers > Dhiman > > Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. > From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Mar 29 19:20:49 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA26121 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:20:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.48]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id TAA19704; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:17:35 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id TAA29884; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:17:36 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA58276; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:47 -0500 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA38772; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:41 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id SAA38778 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:45 -0500 Received: from newshub1-work.home.com (newshub1-work.home.com [24.0.0.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id SAA29024 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:48:41 -0500 Received: from omniplex.mcquillan.com ([209.125.158.40]) by newshub1-work.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <20000329234837.KVJL28334.newshub1-work.home.com@omniplex.mcquillan.com> for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:48:37 -0800 Received: from dhcp-192-68.ietf.connect.com.au by omniplex.mcquillan.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1457.7) id 1TYH4JDV; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:46:36 -0500 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000329184459.00a908d0@omniplex.mcquillan.com> X-Sender: joel@omniplex.mcquillan.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:47:16 -0500 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Policy Terminology: Policy Domain In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000328211149.00a3ece0@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> References: <4.2.2.20000327182251.00a797a0@omniplex.mcquillan.com> <4.3.1.2.20000327101150.00b10100@dse-mail.doc.ic.ac.uk> <4.2.2.20000326234400.00a7b710@mail.ivyplan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1640480==_.ALT" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Joel M. Halpern" --=====================_1640480==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed If the text below is your intent: At 09:58 PM 3/28/00 +0100, Morris Sloman wrote: >The domain structure may be defined in order to support partitioning of >responsibility, the many different types of policy ( authorisation, QoS, >configuration ......) which can apply to objects. then the definition of Policy Domain should not assert that all members of a Policy Domain share the same policy. I (like most people as you say) understand the notion of folder / directory for grouping related things. But noone asserts that all members of a directory share the same policies. We should either assert that all members share policies, and mean it, or we should not make that the definition. I am not hung up on which path we take, but the current definitions try to take both sides of the street at once. Yours, Joel M. Halpern --=====================_1640480==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" If the text below is your intent:

At 09:58 PM 3/28/00 +0100, Morris Sloman wrote:
The domain structure may be defined in order to support partitioning of responsibility, the many different types of policy ( authorisation, QoS, configuration ......) which can apply to objects.


then the definition of Policy Domain should not assert that all members of a Policy Domain share the same policy.  I (like most people as you say) understand the notion of folder / directory for grouping related things.  But noone asserts that all members of a directory share the same policies.  We should either assert that all members share policies, and mean it, or we should not make that the definition.  I am not hung up on which path we take, but the current definitions try to take both sides of the street at once.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

--=====================_1640480==_.ALT-- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Mar 31 17:44:14 2000 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com [204.146.167.235]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18945 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:44:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.24]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id RAA44932; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:40:09 -0500 Received: from rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.4]) by rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with SMTP id RAA34100; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:40:09 -0500 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA28426; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:07:51 -0500 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA33532; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:07:48 -0500 Received: from fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.0.3]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id RAA29008 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:07:53 -0500 Received: from dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.88.59]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id RAA32196 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:07:49 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 by dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:02:37 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Received: by dfssl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:02:37 -0800 Message-Id: <078292D50C98D2118D090008C7E9C6A60C2F3FA9@STAY.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> From: Yoram Bernet To: "Fenger, Russell J" , "'Dhiman Barman'" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: RE: COPS Implementation Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:02:50 -0800 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Yoram Bernet Intel's COPS module also runs on Win2K's admission control server, providing integrated network QoS policy control for applications running on Win2K hosts... > -----Original Message----- > From: Fenger, Russell J [mailto:russell.j.fenger@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 12:47 PM > To: 'Dhiman Barman'; policy@raleigh.ibm.com > Subject: RE: COPS Implementation > > > > Intel's PBM technology is already used in HP OpenView PolicyXpert > which has COPS and COPS for RSVP support. > > We've also implemented a COPS SDK separately that supports COPS > base protocol and RSVP extensions for COPS. This SDK is designed > to allow additional extensions such as COPS-PR to be added. > > Russ > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dhiman Barman [mailto:dhiman@cse.iitb.ernet.in] > > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 1:41 AM > > To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com > > Subject: COPS Implementation > > > > > > Hi, > > May I know if any one has looked into COPS implementation > > in practice. > > Any pointers will be of great help ? Thanks. > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Dhiman > > > > Man who sleep in cathouse by day, sleep in doghouse by night. > > >