See http://www.dmtf.org/download/spec/xmls/CIM_HTTP_Mapping10.htm
Marcus
Raju Rajan wrote:
>
> 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
> >
--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 - 23:13:22 CET