Yves
> 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.
Why are we doing this? SLS requires transport representation for which
XML makes sense. Are we required to make informational model for
storage purposes? I doubt that! Tanning SLS with a policy information model
might make sense if SLS is to be stored for provisional purposes but
what you store is not necessarily what you transport. If SLS is addressing
transport issues why worry about informational models!
Even if that is the case, it is not clear that the PCIMe will align
with CIM. If we start with CIM model then we inherit all the problems
the policy framework WG has dealt with already. Why not build on
CIM by default by building on policy if we decide to go down that
road.
regards
Abdallah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 28 2001 - 18:38:26 CEST