On the CIM to XML mapping is there any standard way of doing this? I
apologize for my ignorance, but certainly do not want us to get embroiled
in a mapping controversy ;)
Naturally, I agree with the rest of Marcus' comments (except the LDAP
extension about which I'm ambivalent.)
raju
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Marcus Brunner wrote:
> Yves,
>
> comments inline
>
> Yves T'Joens wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Include in the charter an explicit requirements collection and agreement
> > phase, so that we make certain everybody knows exactly what we are
> > talking about, and the noses are in the same direction.
> >
>
> I support that, and it is common IETF practice.
>
> [...]
>
> > Try to split technology independent information from technology
> > dependent
> > information such as to increase the possibility of later reuse of the
> > framework in other contexts. (e.g., optical SLS)
> >
>
> This is a dangerous comment, because we loose focus, and the
> generalization of the work may be one later. (As an engineer I fully
> support the independence)
>
> > Some of the early confusion on terminology stems from the fact that
> > subscription and negotiation are intermixed. So i would suggest that the
> > baseline framework ONLY discusses invocation as described in the present
> > document (that is to say, the notion of subscription would go into the
> > particular sections of earlier work, i.e., I2 and Tequila)
> >
>
> Good idea, stay as simple as possible at the fist place, may add other
> things later, if there is enough interest in the community.
>
> [...]
> > e2e versus edge to edge : the present architecture is focussed on
> > providing edge to edge services. So maybe lets make this explicit. The
> > e2e service as known as host to host, is an artefact of this model, when
> > ingress and egress links denote/imply 32bit addresses.
>
> It needs to be explicitly said, and the difference to PDBs needs to be
> described.
>
> > include both customer/provider and provider/provider transport service
> > negotiation (in so far differences can be expected)
> >
> > use CIM for the information model, to optimize reuse of ongoing work in
> > the policy framework group. Then limit the scope of the group to define
> > XML and negotiation over http, including semantics of the message
> > exchanges.
>
> actually it is not about limiting the scope, but it is about mapping the
> CIM model to XML. I personnaly would like to add the LDAP mapping as
> well. But lets focus on what we have.
>
> > can we find consensus on this ?
> >
> > cheers,
> > Yves
>
> --
>
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> C&C Research Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de
> WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner
>
> Adenauerplatz 6
> D-69115 Heidelberg
> Germany
>
> Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
> Fax: +49 (0)6221/ 9051155
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 22 2001 - 21:53:36 CET