From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Feb 12 14:40:34 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13161 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1CJo5H16102 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:50:05 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1CJjtp15963; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:45:55 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1CJiGp15891 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:44:16 -0500 Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13000 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.113.114.131] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4281132 for policy@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:37:56 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212143410.02121ab0@mail.stevecrocker.com> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:37:39 -0500 To: policy@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [Policy] One more try for interest Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Well, a small number of additional people spoke up for my last note. Reviewing my records, I do note that 2 months ago we received http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt an internet draft starting on the problem of an LDAP mapping of PCIMe. I have seen no discussion of this draft on the list. If we were to get rechartered to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe, is this the right document? Is this document so well put together that Ed and I should just ask the IESG to publish to as a PS? Has anyone other than the authors even read the document? Thank you, Joel M. Halpern PS: Just to be clear, if there is not significant participation we will have no choice but to close the working group. _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Feb 13 07:05:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10407 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1DCFiH15570 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:15:44 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCBjp15417; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:11:45 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DCAkp15345 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:10:46 -0500 Received: from dukas.upc.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10264 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:00:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mat.upc.es (mat.upc.es [147.83.39.3]) by dukas.upc.es (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h1DC46dx000441 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:04:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mat.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B91DE8C for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:03:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from mat.upc.es (girin-3.upc.es [147.83.39.75]) by mat.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7944DE89 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:03:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3DF8E297.3070405@mat.upc.es> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 20:25:11 +0100 From: David Moron User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: policy@ietf.org Subject: RE:[Policy] pcimRuleConditionAssociation can contain pcimConditionAuxClass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The pcimRuleConditionAssociation was only designed to map the PCIM's PolicyRuleInPolicyCondition aggregation. If you wanted to use conditions contained in conditions you would use the the PCIMExtensions mapping: www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt The *AuxClass are auxiliary classes used to add or attach its attibutes to an structural class. For instance the pcimeRuleConditionAssociation (structural class) and pcimVendorConditionAuxClass (auxiliary class): +----------------+ | | | pcimRule | | | +----------------+ | | | | +-----------------------------+ |pcimeRuleConditionAssociation| | + | |pcimVendorConditionAuxClass | +-----------------------------+ Then you have a class with the attributes of pcimeRuleConditionAssociation and pcimVendorConditionAuxClass. Using openLDAP (www.openldap.org): first, you have to create the pcimeRuleConditionAssociation class in a distinguished name (dn) with the command "ldapadd", then, attach pcimeVendorconditionAuxClass to the same dn using the command "ldapmodify". pcimeRuleauxClass and pcimGroupauxClass are auxiliary classes used to map the PCIM's PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup and PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup aggregations.They have to be attached to pcimGroupInstance(structural) class or pcimPolicyInstance if it's a reusable group (pcimPolicyInstance(structural)+ pcimGroupauxClass(auxiliary)+pcimRuleAuxClass(auxiliary)). The conditions and actions are always attached to structural classes (pcimPolicyInstance, pcimRuleConditionAssociation or pcimRuleActionAssociation) so they are named as *AuxClass. >Just wondering if this association means that a condition can contain >conditions? It seems that all of the *AuxClass objects are used to infer >that an object can contain child objects of type *. This seems especially >evident via the PcimRuleAuxClass and PcimGroupAuxClass. >It also appears that the pcimRuleConditionAssociation is an abstract >implementation of a core PcimCondition (on par with how a PcimRule object >represents a rule). After reading through the draft, it seems that the >naming convention for classes as they relate to conditions and actions are >not 100% in-sync with rules and groups. This seems somewhat >misleading/confusing to users of this standard, and I was wondering if there >was any explanation/reasoning for the change in naming convention between >these sets of objects? >thx, >d. _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 25 10:33:24 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03514 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1PFgSg06073 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:42:28 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFa3p04648; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:36:06 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFRlp04287 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:27:47 -0500 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02949 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:18:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias4.treas.gov (tias-gw4.treas.gov [199.196.144.14]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id h1PFM4wj024606; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by tias4.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 15:22:04 UT Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-5.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1PFLwT7019786; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.7.14.15]) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:58 -0500 Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mears.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PFLsH06140; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:55 -0500 Message-ID: <3E5B8A12.7040804@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:54 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: Internal Revenue Service User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" CC: policy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Policy] One more try for interest References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212143410.02121ab0@mail.stevecrocker.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joel, WG, Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 02/12/2003 02:37 PM: > Well, a small number of additional people spoke up for my last note. > > Reviewing my records, I do note that 2 months ago we received > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt > > an internet draft starting on the problem of an LDAP mapping of PCIMe. > > I have seen no discussion of this draft on the list. > > If we were to get rechartered to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe, is > this the right document? The draft is a draft. If those who advocate Policy as a tool for implementing QoS want to carry PCIMe forward to a concrete LDAP implementation, they should do it. But why recharter *only* to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe? Policy has much more potential for specificity, for refinement, for extension, for applicability. This WG should be the forum to extend Policy in whatever direction it evolves. > Is this document so well put together that Ed and I should just ask the > IESG to publish to as a PS? No. It needs some work, particularly with its LDAP-isms. The ABNF which describes the information components of PCIMe is incomplete and should be conformed to the style and format defined in RFC 2252. > Has anyone other than the authors even read the document? Yes. > > Thank you, > Joel M. Halpern > > PS: Just to be clear, if there is not significant participation we will > have no choice but to close the working group. Don't close it before the PCLS comes out of the IANA oven and attains RFC status. What's up with that, anyway? What's the status of the PCLS? If the WG is closed before PCLS becomes an RFC, the WG will have exited without even offering a hint of a mechanism for implementing the Model. This would render the work which has already been accomplished practically useless from an interoperability standpoint. What's the rush to close the WG? Consider the history of this WG. Its progress has always been slower than some would have liked. Why kill it now? What has changed? Why has apparent interest in this WG withered? I have my own pet theories. THEORY 1 The withering of this WG's vitality reflects a natural consequence of the evolution of the IETF's deliberative and standards setting processes. I'm not the first to observe that the IETF's activities have come to be dominated by commercial entities, by commercial interests. If there is a market opportunity, it seems, there is potential for an RFC which can serve as a marketing tool. The upside is that commercial entities can focus financial and human resources on a problem space in ways that academic, government, and pure research sectors cannot. By the same token, when a market segment recedes, withers, or is supplanted by The Next Big Thing, then the commercially driven support for a technology initiative which has become Yesterday's Catfood (marketing-wise) withers as well. Are immediate marketability and near-term market advantage the only true measures of a technology's necessity? THEORY 2 When the work of this WG was PCIM and PCLS, the future of Policy seemed wide open. As defined in PCIM and PCLS, Policy isn't just for netheads and router jockeys. But when the WG's work narrowed to PCIMe, when the work of this WG turned to focus more explicitly on QoS issues, the interested audience narrowed commensurately; an unfortunate but natural consequence. Joel, I believe there is adequate justification for continuing this WG. Policy is bigger than QoS. If the Policy for QoS advocacy has faded or is temporarily dormant, so be it. But Policy has more to offer, and I'd like to help prove it. -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Feb 25 15:00:45 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA12960 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1PK9sL26860 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:09:54 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PK3ap25882; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:03:36 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1PK08p25741 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:00:08 -0500 Received: from SMTP.HOTELS.MAGINET.NET (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12548 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from JLaptop.stevecrocker.com ([61.193.171.17]) by SMTP.HOTELS.MAGINET.NET with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:00:49 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030225145058.018dce08@mail.stevecrocker.com> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:54:14 -0500 To: policy@ietf.org From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: [Policy] One more try for interest In-Reply-To: <3E5B8A12.7040804@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030212143410.02121ab0@mail.stevecrocker.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2003 20:00:49.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[97942320:01C2DD08] Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thank you for the reply Larry. It is very helpful to see. To answer the procedural question you raise, IETF working groups are chartered for specific deliverables. For good or ill, the IETF approach to working groups does not permit a working group to simply serve as a forum for evolving a technology. Yours, Joel M. Halpern PS: A description of the LDAPisms that you believe need to be improved (not line by line, but concept by concept) based on the new draft the authors have produced would be helpful to the working group and the authors. At 10:21 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote: >Joel, WG, > >Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 02/12/2003 02:37 PM: >>Well, a small number of additional people spoke up for my last note. >>Reviewing my records, I do note that 2 months ago we received >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt >> >>an internet draft starting on the problem of an LDAP mapping of PCIMe. >>I have seen no discussion of this draft on the list. >>If we were to get rechartered to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe, is >>this the right document? > > >The draft is a draft. If those who advocate Policy as a tool for >implementing QoS want to carry PCIMe forward to a concrete LDAP >implementation, they should do it. > >But why recharter *only* to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe? Policy >has much more potential for specificity, for refinement, for extension, >for applicability. This WG should be the forum to extend Policy in >whatever direction it evolves. > > >>Is this document so well put together that Ed and I should just ask the >>IESG to publish to as a PS? > > >No. It needs some work, particularly with its LDAP-isms. The ABNF >which describes the information components of PCIMe is incomplete >and should be conformed to the style and format defined in >RFC 2252. > > >>Has anyone other than the authors even read the document? > > >Yes. > > >>Thank you, >>Joel M. Halpern >>PS: Just to be clear, if there is not significant participation we will >>have no choice but to close the working group. > > >Don't close it before the PCLS comes out of the IANA oven and attains >RFC status. What's up with that, anyway? What's the status of the PCLS? > >If the WG is closed before PCLS becomes an RFC, the WG will have >exited without even offering a hint of a mechanism for implementing >the Model. This would render the work which has already been >accomplished practically useless from an interoperability standpoint. > >What's the rush to close the WG? Consider the history of this WG. Its >progress has always been slower than some would have liked. Why kill >it now? What has changed? > >Why has apparent interest in this WG withered? I have my own pet >theories. > >THEORY 1 >The withering of this WG's vitality reflects a natural consequence >of the evolution of the IETF's deliberative and standards setting >processes. I'm not the first to observe that the IETF's activities >have come to be dominated by commercial entities, by commercial >interests. If there is a market opportunity, it seems, there is >potential for an RFC which can serve as a marketing tool. The upside >is that commercial entities can focus financial and human resources >on a problem space in ways that academic, government, and pure research >sectors cannot. By the same token, when a market segment recedes, >withers, or is supplanted by The Next Big Thing, then the commercially >driven support for a technology initiative which has become Yesterday's >Catfood (marketing-wise) withers as well. > >Are immediate marketability and near-term market advantage the only >true measures of a technology's necessity? > >THEORY 2 >When the work of this WG was PCIM and PCLS, the future of Policy >seemed wide open. As defined in PCIM and PCLS, Policy isn't just >for netheads and router jockeys. But when the WG's work narrowed to >PCIMe, when the work of this WG turned to focus more explicitly on >QoS issues, the interested audience narrowed commensurately; an >unfortunate but natural consequence. > > >Joel, I believe there is adequate justification for continuing this >WG. Policy is bigger than QoS. If the Policy for QoS advocacy has >faded or is temporarily dormant, so be it. But Policy has more to >offer, and I'd like to help prove it. > > >-- >-- >#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| ># Larry Bartz | | ># lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | ># | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | ># | I've got a gnu attitude! | ># voice (317) 226-7060 | | ># FAX (317) 226-6378 | | >#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy