Subject: Re: Policy Terminology Draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 08:35:28 -0400

Jon,

>Could we use 'conversion' as opposed to translation to refer to the task
of
>changing a policy at whatever level of abstraction to a protocol specific
>form. This may not always be obvious or algorithmic.

Changing it to a protocol-specific form from what?  The only
answer that I can think of is "From another protocol-specific
form."  If this is what we want "conversion" to mean, then I
think it's clearer to define it as "The task of changing a
policy at a given level of abstraction from one protocol-
specific form to a different protocol-specific form."  Does
this correspond to how you wanted us to use the term
"conversion"?

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
[email-masked]

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:03:18 -0400

on 08/31/2000 8:35 AM, [email-masked] at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> 
> Jon,
> 
>> Could we use 'conversion' as opposed to translation to refer to the task of
> Changing it to a protocol-specific form from what?  The only answer that I can
> think of is "From another protocol-specific form."  If this is what we want
> "conversion" to mean, then I think it's clearer to define it as "The task of
> changing a policy at a given level of abstraction from one protocol- specific
> form to a different protocol-specific form."  Does this correspond to how you
> wanted us to use the term "conversion"?
> 
> 
We are getting closer. To me the various levels of abstraction are
independent of the protocol/framework specifics that are used to carry the
policy information around or store it in some sort of database.  Here is a
specific example. If I wanted EF behavior for packets with a DSCP of some
value(s), then that would be realized in different machines with different
mechanisms such  as RED. So to convey the policy of EF for say voice, I
would convey mechanism specifics (the red parameters) to the devices. How
this information is conveyed and the form of the information will be quite
different if I use a CLI, SNMP, or COPS-PR or some other mechanism such as
FTP which is what a lot of the world uses.

> "The task of changing a policy at a given level of abstraction from one
> protocol- specific form to a different protocol-specific form."

I would modify this just a bit and say: The task of changing a policy at a
given level of abstraction to a protocol- specific form.

/jon