Comments inline.
regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yves T'Joens" <yves.tjoens@alcatel.be>
To: <sls@ist-tequila.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] SLS Information Model
> Jim Quinn wrote:
> >
> > Alessandro,
> >
> > I think this is a good idea and with the work already
done in Policy WG,
> > this group should be in a position to capitalise and hit
the ground running;
>
> Jim,
>
> You are correct in your statement that the policy group
hosts a lot of
> knowledgeable people on data modeling today, however, i do
not agree
> that any effort in protocol independent modeling of
information should
> automatically be dropped in the policy framework group.
> That decision is not up to us however, and i would
appreciate any other
> views on this issue.
<js>
I agree with Yves here. The policy framework working group
has a rather narrowly defined charter, and although this
work should certainly take the Policy work into account and
even reuse and/or refine it where possible, I don't think
that it has to be shoved into the Policy wg.
In fact, precedent exists in the form of IPsec policy, which
is NOT being worked on in the Policy working group, but
rather in the IPSP working group.
>/js>
> > bear in mind also that the creation of a schema along
the lines of the
> > (LDAP) PFSCHEMA should also be considered.
>
> I personally think multiple protocols can be used to carry
the
> information contained in an SLS. In fact, some while ago,
some of us
> submitted a draft to the IETF describing the use of
PPP/IPCP to
> negotiate a subset of SLS parameters that would apply to
the link over
> which the SLS was negotiated.
> This effort was almost immediately blocked by some of the
PPP gurus,
> that directed SLS negotiation to 'another' protocol.
> As far as LDAP is concerned, it might not be adequate to
offer the
> richness of negotiation required for reaching an agreement
between
> customer and provider. However, i would certainly not
exclude it.
<js>
I agree, both with respect to the multiple protocol issue as
well as with LDAP. Though I would note that LDAP *should* do
just fine in distributing the information - the question is
whether LDAP can be used to operate on (create, delete,
edit, search, etc.) the information.
</js>
> cheers
> Yves
>
>
> >
> > Jim Quinn
> > Systems Architect
> >
> > Activation IKM
> > A Division of Computing Devices Co Ltd
> > A GENERAL DYNAMICS COMPANY
> > Phone: +44 (0) 1424 798125
> > Fax: +44 (0) 1424 798299
> > Mobile: 07866 135778
> > Email: jquinn@compd.com
> > Web: www.activationikm.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alessandro Zorer [mailto:zorer@sodalia.it]
> > > Sent: 23 October 2000 10:26
> > > To: sls@ist-tequila.org
> > > Subject: [tequila/sls] SLS Information Model
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear all
> > >
> > > Is there any ongoing (or planned) effort on producing
a SLS
> > > Information Model?
> > > I mean, for example, the same kind of work the Policy
> > > Framework has done in extending the CIM/DEN model. In
my
> > > opinion (maybe not very smart, since i'm new to this
subject
> > > ;-), this could be an effective tool for representing
SLS
> > > concepts and their relationships with Policy, QoS etc.
> > > I'd be very glad to know your opinion on this matter.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Alessandro
> > >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 05 2000 - 07:04:56 CET