LAVERGNE Laurent DvSI/SIReS/LAN wrote:
>
> I don't understand the point. Is SLS looking for an modeling language to
> describe the SLS information (for real time negociation) or is it looking
> for an existing information model to plug to?
>
> I think I agree with the first part of the previous message and don't
> understand the need of CIM (or even PCIM), someone could perhaps explain me
> this.
well, the reasoning is the following
a) There is merrit to start of with a protocol independent
representation of an information model, focusing on the semantics of
grouping certain objects when they _have_been_ negotiated. This
coincides with what Joel also brought forward.
b) There is merrit to start from work done in another working group
(i.e., the policy framework group), that has a model that can be reused
(e.g., to give the semantics of policing/marking parameters at the
ingress of the network.)
c) Choosing a protocol dependent (and as such bits and bytes of syntax)
representation goes along with solving the problem of protocol choice.
Choosing a protocol should start from exploring the requirements for a
protocol that may be used to actually _negotiate_ the resulting Service
Level. When I indicated XML over http earlier, that was since quite a
number of people indicated developments in that direction.
However, during the Minneapolis meeting, i spoke to some people that
would first like to see some requirements before excluding e.g., LDAP.
so, this would require some update of the charter again.
Let's see if people agree with the above stepwise approach, before
redrafting charters.
cheers
Yves
>
> regards
> L.Lavergne, France Telecom
>
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Abdallah Rayhan [mailto:arayhan@nortelnetworks.com]
> >> Envoye : mercredi 28 mars 2001 18:19
> >> A : sls@ist-tequila.org
> >> Objet : Re: [tequila/sls] comments on SLS scope
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 : Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:06:14 CEST