See also
http://www.dmtf.org/download/spec/xmls/CIM_XML_Mapping20.htm
for XML specific mapping of CIM
regards,
Denis
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Marcus Brunner [mailto:brunner@ccrle.nec.de]
|Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:14 PM
|To: sls@ist-tequila.org
|Subject: Re: [tequila/sls] comments on SLS scope
|
|
|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 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 16:06:17 CET