Subject: [Policy] One more try for interest

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:37:39 -0500

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

---

From: "Larry S. Bartz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:21:54 -0500

Joel, WG,

Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 02/12/2003 02:37 PM:
> 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.

> 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.

> 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                           |                              |
#  [email-masked]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
#  voice (317) 226-7060                 |                              |
#  FAX   (317) 226-6378                 |                              |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:54:14 -0500

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.