From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Fri Sep 1 03:24:13 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 DAA06134 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:24:12 -0400 (EDT) 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 DAA29626; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:21:42 -0400 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 DAA04826; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 03:21:39 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA61038; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:54:57 -0400 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA34310; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:54:47 -0400 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 CAA25252 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:54:46 -0400 Received: from p-mail1.cnet.fr ([192.144.74.31]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with SMTP id CAA31572 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 02:54:45 -0400 Received: by p-biset.issy.cnet.fr with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:54:13 +0200 Message-Id: From: LE.GARREC.Frederic.FTRD/DMI/SOP@rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com To: "'policy@raleigh.ibm.com'" Subject: RE: Comments on QPIM-01 draft Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:54:05 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: LE GARREC Frederic FTRD/DMI/SOP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id DAA06134 Some comments about Bob's points #1, 2 and 6: 1. I agree. 2. Although the subject of the mail is QPIM, forgive me for disgressing a little : mention of ManagedElement makes me think about the lack of associations to replace the now deleted ConditionTarget/ConditionSubject assocs in PCIM. Am I wrong to believe that such associations should now be defined in PolicyCondition subclasses ? As for now, only available assoc left to replace them is Dependency (quite huge an assoc for such small use). 6. Doesn't it belong to PEP's capabilities to know packets structures so that it can find a username inside ? Payloads structure are application-specific, and info about fields "position" should, in my opinion, not be modeled. Regards, _________________________________ Frederic LE GARREC France Telecom R&D FT.BD/FTR&D/DMI/ASE Tel: +33 4 92 94 52 88 -----Message d'origine----- De: remoore@us.ibm.com [mailto:remoore@us.ibm.com] Date: jeudi 31 août 2000 19:30 À: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Objet: Comments on QPIM-01 draft Since the end of August is upon us, here are some comments I have on the QPIM-01 draft. I hear from JohnS that the authors are working on a new version of the document, so some of these concerns may have already been addressed. But I'd like to get them onto the list now: 1. Showing its roots, the QPIM is still much more of a thinly veneered LDAP schema than it is a technology independent information model. For example: - There are *no* new associations defined in the QPIM. - Containment language still plays far too prominent a role in the QPIM. 2. The class QosPolicySimpleCondition is supposed to be a subclass of PolicyCondition (from PCIM), which places it under ManagedElement. But a subclass of ManagedElement can't have the object references that QosPolicySimpleCondition contains -- object references are allowed only in association classes. 3. Something's not quite right with the modeling of meters in QPIM. The parameters for a meter are modeled not in the meter object itself, and not even in an object directly related to the meter object. Instead, they're in a traffic profile object associated with an action object, which in turn is associated with the meter object. Since multiple action objects can be associated with a single meter (representing the fan-in of multiple traffic streams into that one meter), this opens up the possibility of having two incompatible traffic profiles governing the operation of a single meter. 4. The document says that constraints are modeled in QPIM, but I can't find any class to do this. 5. The qpValueTypes property appears to repeat the same information that's already expressed in the document in Table 3. (Aside: This table looks like one that will need to transition to IANA once QPIM is published as an RFC.) Why is this known information being repeated in every instance of qosPolicyVariable? 6. For the variable names "Application" and "User" (in Table 2), how does an implementation know where in the packet to look for the values? In other words, how does an implementation know how to go about evaluating a QosPolicySimpleCondition like "Application = LotusNotes" or "User = YoramSnir"? 7. Section 8.18 needs to say a lot more about how the object reference part of the reference to a property value works. (Like naming, object references are hard to discuss at the level of a technology-independent information model.) Once you've gotten to the right object, it's relatively easy to find the right value, given that you have both the attribute (property) name and the value. But QPIM needs to generalize the object reference explanation beyond the single example of an RSVP Identity. 8. The document says that it defines nesting of policy rules, but I can't find any definitions that actually do this. Regards, Bob Bob Moore IBM Networking Software +1-919-254-4436 remoore@us.ibm.com From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Sat Sep 2 09:47:10 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 JAA13544 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:47:09 -0400 (EDT) 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 JAA29514; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:44:32 -0400 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 JAA26834; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:44:32 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA39028; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:19:05 -0400 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA72790; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:19:01 -0400 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 JAA32276 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:19:04 -0400 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 JAA24852 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:18:59 -0400 Received: from user-53.cisco.com ([144.254.95.9]) by csi-admin1.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA09757; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 16:17:56 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000902043744.00be1aa0@csi-admin1> X-Sender: ronc@csi-admin1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 06:19:14 -0700 To: remoore@us.ibm.com, policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Ron Cohen Subject: Re: Comments on QPIM-01 draft In-Reply-To: <8525694C.00600D3E.00@d54mta02.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Ron Cohen Bob, Thanks for the feedback. Please see inline. >Since the end of August is upon us, here are some >comments I have on the QPIM-01 draft. I hear from >JohnS that the authors are working on a new version >of the document, so some of these concerns may have >already been addressed. But I'd like to get them >onto the list now: > >1. Showing its roots, the QPIM is still much more > of a thinly veneered LDAP schema than it is > a technology independent information model. > For example: > - There are *no* new associations defined in > the QPIM. > - Containment language still plays far too > prominent a role in the QPIM. There are several new associations and aggregations defined in QPIM, including policyVariableInSimpleCondition and policyValueInSimpleCOndition, etc. These associations/aggregations were not explicitly stated as such. This will be fixed in the new draft. >2. The class QosPolicySimpleCondition is supposed > to be a subclass of PolicyCondition (from PCIM), > which places it under ManagedElement. But a > subclass of ManagedElement can't have the > object references that QosPolicySimpleCondition > contains -- object references are allowed only > in association classes. We'll try to answer this in a separate mail. >3. Something's not quite right with the modeling of > meters in QPIM. The parameters for a meter are > modeled not in the meter object itself, and not > even in an object directly related to the meter > object. Instead, they're in a traffic profile > object associated with an action object, which > in turn is associated with the meter object. > Since multiple action objects can be associated > with a single meter (representing the fan-in of > multiple traffic streams into that one meter), > this opens up the possibility of having two > incompatible traffic profiles governing the > operation of a single meter. " Traffic meters measure the temporal properties of the stream of packets selected by a classifier against a traffic profile.. " RFC2475. We have chosen to separate the modeling into a traffic profile, that includes the set of parameters (rate and burst) from the fan-in indicator. In this way we can reuse the traffic profile across multiple rules, without implying fan-in. Only those rules that include the same qosPolicyMeter fan-in together and contribute to the actual measured meter. This also allows to indicate measure-only actions vs. policing actions. In theory, as you indicate, there could be separate rules using different traffic profile governing the operation of a single meter. This will not be a common situation, but what is wrong with it? Consider the following rules: Rule 1: If (TFTP) measure using the 'File Transfer Meter' and police to 64Kb/s Rule 2: If (FTP) measure using the 'File Transfer Meter' and police to 128Kb/s The outcome of these two rule will make sure that File Transfer meter will measure all possible file-transfers (FTP or TFTP), and when it reaches 64Kb/s, only FTP file transfer can be used up to a total of 128Kb/sec. >4. The document says that constraints are modeled > in QPIM, but I can't find any class to do this. The constraints modeled in QPIM are on the possible values of a given variable using the variable's property qpValueConstraints. The example given in the draft is of a source-port variables that constrains the possible values to a range of integers 0-65535. The variable references an integer value holding the above constraint. >5. The qpValueTypes property appears to repeat the > same information that's already expressed in > the document in Table 3. (Aside: This table > looks like one that will need to transition to > IANA once QPIM is published as an RFC.) Why > is this known information being repeated in > every instance of qosPolicyVariable? Table 3 indicates the default value types that a variable uses. This is informational. The idea is that both variables and values are extendable, therefore one could define a new value or a new variable and indicate using the information model which types of values can be bound to which types of values. The variable's property qpValueTypes may therefore holds this information for each variable. This property may further constrain a given variable to use only part of the possible values defined in Table 3. For example, indicating that a source-IP variable used in some expressions may hold only qosPolicyIPv4AddressValues and not qosPolicyIPv6AddressValues. We'll add this clarification to the revised draft. We should follow all IANA considerations. We'll get guidance from the WG chairs on what is needed to be done. >6. For the variable names "Application" and "User" > (in Table 2), how does an implementation know > where in the packet to look for the values? > In other words, how does an implementation know > how to go about evaluating a > QosPolicySimpleCondition like "Application = > LotusNotes" or "User = YoramSnir"? One example of use of user and application variables are given in the draft: An RSVP flow may carry policy Identity policy objects carrying the user-id or application policy objects carrying the application id. This policy object information includes the LotusNotes and YoramSnir values. There are other methods in which the user can find out the user or application identities. For example, there are network devices that can track layer 4 flows and find application parameters - i.e. know that a flow is an http flow, regardless of the port used. >7. Section 8.18 needs to say a lot more about how > the object reference part of the reference to a > property value works. (Like naming, object > references are hard to discuss at the level of a > technology-independent information model.) Once > you've gotten to the right object, it's relatively > easy to find the right value, given that you have > both the attribute (property) name and the value. > But QPIM needs to generalize the object reference > explanation beyond the single example of an RSVP > Identity. In choosing the possible variables and values we have tried to capture the most important standards around Intserv and Diffserv. The identity policy object carrying application and user ids do provide crucial information, therefore we added variables and values to express user and application based policies. It seemed plausible that using other techniques (802.1x) one can get similar information. QPIM does not mandate the way in which this information is gathered, as long as there is a reliable mechanism to do that. >8. The document says that it defines nesting of > policy rules, but I can't find any definitions > that actually do this. This will be better explained in the new draft Thanks Ron >Regards, >Bob > >Bob Moore >IBM Networking Software >+1-919-254-4436 >remoore@us.ibm.com From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Sat Sep 2 09:49:46 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 JAA13555 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:49:45 -0400 (EDT) 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 JAA36686; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:44:33 -0400 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 JAA34006; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:44:33 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA72424; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:05:47 -0400 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA74152; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:05:04 -0400 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 JAA21656 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:04:32 -0400 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id JAA18390 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:04:22 -0400 Received: from [24.128.60.156] (h0050e460d16d.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.60.156]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA17122; Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:04:20 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 09:06:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Policy Terminology Draft From: Jon Saperia To: Bob Natale Cc: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000831135939.0202e108@plymouth.acec.com> 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: Jon Saperia Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit on 08/31/2000 2:02 PM, Bob Natale at bnatale@acecomm.com wrote: > At 8/31/2000:07:22 AM, Jon Saperia wrote: > > Hi 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. > > Sounds good to me...your final sentence there rules > out "mapping" in my view (as much as I wish we could > do mappings!) and "conversion" seems better suited > (i.e., somewhat more predictable) than "translation". > > Thanks, as you pointed out earlier, the most important point is the distinction I was making. There are a number of other comments I sent to the list in my original posting I hope we can discuss them in time as well. /jon From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Sep 5 04:26:44 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 EAA26015 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:26:44 -0400 (EDT) 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 EAA28374; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:25:27 -0400 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 EAA34222; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:25:26 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA62990; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:05:44 -0400 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA26746; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:05:33 -0400 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 EAA27426 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:05:34 -0400 Received: from sigma.cisco.com (sigma.cisco.com [171.69.63.142]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id EAA23860 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 04:05:32 -0400 Received: from andreawlap (sj-dial-4-93.cisco.com [171.68.181.222]) by sigma.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA06615; Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:04:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrea Westerinen" To: "Nim@Psg. Com" , "Policy@Raleigh. Ibm. Com" Subject: FYI ... An article on CIM, Policy Framework WG and modeling from Network Computing Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:07:54 -0700 Message-Id: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Andrea Westerinen" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Feature: Management Standards Come Together ------------------------------------------------------------ (September 4, 2000) By Bruce Boardman Will management standards deliver on their promise of true interoperability? Standards groups are collaborating to provide an overarching framework with buy-in from all the major industry vendors. Can they pull it off? Here's our take: http://www.nwc.com/1117/1117f3.html?ls=NCJS_NL160 Andrea From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Sep 11 08:04:59 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 SMTP id IAA00099 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:04:59 -0400 (EDT) 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 IAA30220; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:03:21 -0400 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 IAA30030; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:03:20 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA28222; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:41:53 -0400 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA33074; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:41:49 -0400 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 HAA32446 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:41:50 -0400 Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id HAA30888 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:41:47 -0400 Received: from [24.128.60.156] (h0050e460d16d.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.60.156]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA18703; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:38:36 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:41:58 -0400 Subject: New policy terminology draft From: Jon Saperia To: , Message-Id: 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: Jon Saperia Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrea, I was wondering when a new version is expected. I had not seen any comments on the comments I posted on 8/28. Thanks /jon From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Sep 13 01:31:15 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 SMTP id BAA23100 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:31:11 -0400 (EDT) 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 BAA18022; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:28:43 -0400 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 BAA28256; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:28:36 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA44836; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:10:48 -0400 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA42718; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:10:41 -0400 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 BAA30090 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:10:41 -0400 Received: from sigma.cisco.com (sigma.cisco.com [171.69.63.142]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id BAA06330 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 01:10:39 -0400 Received: from andreawlap (sj-dial-3-83.cisco.com [171.68.180.84]) by sigma.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10371; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:09:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrea Westerinen" To: "Jon Saperia" , Subject: RE: New policy terminology draft Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:13:32 -0700 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 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Andrea Westerinen" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My apologies on not replying. I was teaching a multi-day class all of last week, and quite consumed. The team is expecting to publish a new draft in a few weeks. Separately, I will respond to your comments starting with the 8/28 mail. Andrea -----Original Message----- From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com [mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of Jon Saperia Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:42 AM To: andreaw@cisco.com; policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: New policy terminology draft Andrea, I was wondering when a new version is expected. I had not seen any comments on the comments I posted on 8/28. Thanks /jon From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Wed Sep 13 08:11:23 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 SMTP id IAA05663 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:11:22 -0400 (EDT) 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 IAA26634; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:09:15 -0400 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 IAA27972; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:09:14 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA49184; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:44:02 -0400 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA39960; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:43:59 -0400 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 HAA33912 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:44:01 -0400 Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.147.1.144]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id HAA21508 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:43:58 -0400 Received: from [24.128.60.156] (h0050e460d16d.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.60.156]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA28446; Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:43:32 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:46:56 -0400 Subject: Re: New policy terminology draft From: Jon Saperia To: Andrea Westerinen , Message-Id: In-Reply-To: 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: Jon Saperia Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit on 09/13/2000 1:13 AM, Andrea Westerinen at andreaw@cisco.com wrote: > The team is expecting to publish a new draft in a few weeks. Separately, I > will respond to your comments starting with the 8/28 mail. Thanks very much. /jon From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Sep 18 08:27:15 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 SMTP id IAA04959 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:27:12 -0400 (EDT) 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 IAA22540; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:26:32 -0400 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 IAA24290; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:26:31 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA45330; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:58:58 -0400 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA44554; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:58:52 -0400 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 HAA29082 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:58:53 -0400 Received: from indica.wipsys.stph.net ([203.197.255.18]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id HAA22344 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:58:27 -0400 Received: from hdcvwall.wipsys.stph.net (hdcvwall [192.168.150.24]) by indica.wipsys.stph.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA18779 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:22:16 +0530 (IST) Received: from wipro.com ([192.168.143.56]) by vindhya.mail.wipro.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA6E55 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:12:44 +0530 Message-Id: <39C603FC.C885B8A0@wipro.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:31:00 +0530 From: "Krishna Prasad Akkineni" Organization: Wipro Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Mime-Version: 1.0 To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Request for info. on Multiple PDP framework Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Krishna Prasad Akkineni" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Can any one give me some information regarding "Policy Server framework" with multiple policy decision points (i.e.,Several PDPs forming as a tree but with a single Global PDP). Thanks in advance. Krishna -- Krishna Prasad.Akkineni WIPRO Technologies, Telephone : +91-40-6565000, +91-40-6565432 Email : krishna.akkineni@wipro.com --------------------------------------------------------- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Sep 18 13:17:50 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 SMTP id NAA15212 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:49 -0400 (EDT) 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 NAA20548; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:01 -0400 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 NAA30778; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:02 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA37572; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:50:07 -0400 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA22702; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:50:03 -0400 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 MAA29250 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:50:05 -0400 Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk (IDENT:exim@prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk [131.227.76.5]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id MAA23588 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:50:00 -0400 Received: from knossos.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.88.11] ident=eep1pf) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13b47D-0007V4-00 for policy@raleigh.ibm.com; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:49:59 +0100 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:49:58 +0100 (BST) From: Parisis Flegkas To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: policy terminology draft In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Parisis Flegkas Hi, I would like to know what happened with the terms Policy Consumer and Policy Target that were introduced in the Policy framework draft because they are not included in the Policy Terminology draft. thanx, Paris. -------------------------------------------------- Paris Flegkas, PhD Research student, Networks Research Group, Centre for Communications Systems Research, University of Surrey, U.K. email: P.Flegkas@eim.surrey.ac.uk Web: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/P.Flegkas -------------------------------------------------- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Sep 18 14:08:19 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 SMTP id OAA16385 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:07:31 -0400 (EDT) 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 OAA27258; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:06:52 -0400 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 OAA24104; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:06:52 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA33864; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:42:12 -0400 Received: from rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA35642; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:42:09 -0400 Received: from corp.tivoli.com (corp.tivoli.com [146.84.104.1]) by rtpmail02.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id NAA25546 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:42:11 -0400 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 MAA16123; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:41:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by tivmta4.tivoli.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 8625695E.00612A9C ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:41:18 -0500 X-Lotus-Fromdomain: TIVOLI SYSTEMS To: Parisis Flegkas Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Message-Id: <8625695E.0061294F.00@tivmta4.tivoli.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:39:37 -0400 Subject: Re: policy terminology draft 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 We are moving away from those terms, and back to the PEP and PDP terminology introduced by the rap working group. The framework doc has not yet been updated to reflect this. We wanted to work out the terminology to use, and then do the framework update with that new terminology. Ed Ellesson Tivoli Systems Durham, NC ed_ellesson@tivoli.com Office at Tivoli: 919-224-2111 Office at home: 919-644-3977 Parisis Flegkas on 09/18/2000 12:49:58 PM Please respond to Parisis Flegkas To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: (bcc: Ed Ellesson/Tivoli Systems) Subject: policy terminology draft Hi, I would like to know what happened with the terms Policy Consumer and Policy Target that were introduced in the Policy framework draft because they are not included in the Policy Terminology draft. thanx, Paris. -------------------------------------------------- Paris Flegkas, PhD Research student, Networks Research Group, Centre for Communications Systems Research, University of Surrey, U.K. email: P.Flegkas@eim.surrey.ac.uk Web: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/P.Flegkas -------------------------------------------------- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Mon Sep 18 16:05:16 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 SMTP id QAA18751 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:05:16 -0400 (EDT) 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 PAA27718; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:56:38 -0400 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 PAA32870; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:56:37 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA47056; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:28:52 -0400 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA37572; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:28:48 -0400 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 PAA26466 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:28:51 -0400 Received: from sigma.cisco.com (sigma.cisco.com [171.69.63.142]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id PAA32232 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:28:49 -0400 Received: from andreawlap (sj-dial-4-48.cisco.com [171.68.181.177]) by sigma.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17242; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrea Westerinen" To: , "Parisis Flegkas" Cc: Subject: RE: policy terminology draft Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:30:52 -0700 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) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <8625695E.0061294F.00@tivmta4.tivoli.com> Importance: Normal Sender: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Andrea Westerinen" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit BTW, the definition of subject and target have been added to the terminology draft. Andrea -----Original Message----- From: policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com [mailto:policy-owner@raleigh.ibm.com]On Behalf Of Ed_Ellesson@tivoli.com Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 10:40 AM To: Parisis Flegkas Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com Subject: Re: policy terminology draft We are moving away from those terms, and back to the PEP and PDP terminology introduced by the rap working group. The framework doc has not yet been updated to reflect this. We wanted to work out the terminology to use, and then do the framework update with that new terminology. Ed Ellesson Tivoli Systems Durham, NC ed_ellesson@tivoli.com Office at Tivoli: 919-224-2111 Office at home: 919-644-3977 Parisis Flegkas on 09/18/2000 12:49:58 PM Please respond to Parisis Flegkas To: policy@raleigh.ibm.com cc: (bcc: Ed Ellesson/Tivoli Systems) Subject: policy terminology draft Hi, I would like to know what happened with the terms Policy Consumer and Policy Target that were introduced in the Policy framework draft because they are not included in the Policy Terminology draft. thanx, Paris. -------------------------------------------------- Paris Flegkas, PhD Research student, Networks Research Group, Centre for Communications Systems Research, University of Surrey, U.K. email: P.Flegkas@eim.surrey.ac.uk Web: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/P.Flegkas -------------------------------------------------- From majordomo@raleigh.ibm.com Tue Sep 26 06:36:06 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 SMTP id GAA08516 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:36:05 -0400 (EDT) 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 GAA17992; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:26:41 -0400 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 GAA06804; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:26:34 -0400 Received: by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA39356; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:02:19 -0400 Received: from rtpmail01.raleigh.ibm.com by rtpaix11.raleigh.ibm.com (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03-RAL) id AA25780; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:02:16 -0400 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 GAA18880 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:02:16 -0400 Received: from usmail.iphighway.com ([63.89.157.98]) by fwns2.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id GAA06384 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:02:13 -0400 Received: from Shai's (57.66.15.130 [57.66.15.130]) by usmail.iphighway.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id THB792M9; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 05:58:39 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000926055832.00df8280@usmail.iphighway.com> X-Sender: herzog@usmail.iphighway.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 06:02:10 -0400 To: "Krishna Prasad Akkineni" , policy@raleigh.ibm.com From: Shai Herzog Subject: Re: Request for info. on Multiple PDP framework In-Reply-To: <39C603FC.C885B8A0@wipro.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 You can find quite a lot of detail about how multiple PDPs work together in the IPHighway web pages and white papers (www.iphighway.com). It describes how multiple PDPs work in a distributed manner with fail-over/redundancy etc., while presenting a single centralized view to the administrator. (What we like to call "centralized management with distributed execution"). Shai At 05:31 PM 9/18/00, Krishna Prasad Akkineni wrote: >Hi, > Can any one give me some information regarding >"Policy Server framework" with multiple policy >decision points (i.e.,Several PDPs forming as >a tree but with a single Global PDP). > >Thanks in advance. >Krishna > >-- >Krishna Prasad.Akkineni >WIPRO Technologies, >Telephone : +91-40-6565000, +91-40-6565432 >Email : krishna.akkineni@wipro.com >---------------------------------------------------------