--On Thursday, March 29, 2001 4:58 PM -0800 Lotzi Boloni
<boloni@cplane.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2001 16:41, 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.
>
> Although I understand the reasons towards the use of CIM, I tend to
> agree with Laurent here.
>
> For most companies, there is no complete CIM based network model
> hanging around in which to plug the SLS model to. Also, the XML
> description generated by the CIM -> XML mapping rules would be probably
> much more complicated than a straitforward XML representation of the SLS
> (at least what we are using is reasonably simple).
What do you mean by "what we are using"? If it comes to standardiztion, the
data objects and its semantic needs to be very clear. An information model
helps clarifing it in a protocol independent way.
Nobody says that a CIM model is more complicated. If the mapping rules are
too complicated, I think IETF can use what ever maping they want.
>
> Also, I assume most of the time the SLS will be stored in its original
> format (as a text), and that would be the basis of negotiation too.
I disagree with that. Most of the management systems have some sort of a
database, where such information are stored. Storing structured data in a
flat file, is in general not a very good idea. But nobody prevents you from
doing so.
Marcus
>
> Lotzi
>
>> 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
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Lotzi Boloni
>
> boloni@cplane.com http://www.geocities.com/boloni2
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------
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 30 2001 - 16:31:36 CEST