From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Jun 3 11:18:53 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18228 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA19262 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17483; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA04714 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 07:39:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08509; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 07:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200206031138.HAA08509@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: policy@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:38:50 -0400 Subject: [Policy] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Policy Framework Working Group of the IETF. Title : Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms Author(s) : B. Moore, D. Durham, J. Strassner, A. Westerinen, W. Weiss Filename : draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Pages : 91 Date : 31-May-02 The purpose of this draft is to define an information model to describe the quality of service (QoS) mechanisms inherent in different network devices, including hosts. Broadly speaking, these mechanisms describe the attributes common to selecting and conditioning traffic through the forwarding path (datapath) of a network device. This selection and conditioning of traffic in the datapath spans both major QoS architectures: Differentiated Services (see [R2475]) and Integrated Services (see [R1633]). This draft is intended to be used with the QoS Policy Information Model [QPIM] to model how policies can be defined to manage and configure the QoS mechanisms (i.e., the classification, marking, metering, dropping, queuing, and scheduling functionality) of devices. Together, these two drafts describe how to write QoS policy rules to configure and manage the QoS mechanisms present in the datapaths of devices. This draft, as well as [QPIM], are information models. That is, they represent information independent of a binding to a specific type of repository. A separate draft could be written to provide a mapping of the data contained in this document to a form suitable for implementation in a directory that uses (L)DAP as its access protocol. Similarly, a draft could be written to provide a mapping of the data in [QPIM] to a directory. Together, these four drafts (information models and directory schema mappings) would then describe how to write QoS policy rules that can be used to store information in directories to configure device QoS mechanisms. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020531131727.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <20020531131727.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Jun 7 10:24:02 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA27681 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:24:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA29982 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:24:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA29049; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA24146 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx-relay2.treas.gov (mx-relay2.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24818 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:40:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tias4.treas.gov (tias-gw4.treas.gov [199.196.144.14]) by mx-relay2.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g57CctsK007249; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:38:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by tias4.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) with SMTP; 7 Jun 2002 12:40:43 UT Received: from irsbd1.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-4.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g57CWiTI013302; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by irsbd1.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.7.14.14]) with SMTP; 7 Jun 2002 12:40:37 UT Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mears.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g57CebN21748; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 07:40:37 -0500 Message-ID: <3D00A9C5.1090509@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:40:37 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: IRS Directory Services User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt@OpenLDAP.org, IETF Policy WG LIST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Policy] PCLS status? Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt, The http://www.ops.ietf.org/draft-status.html shows the draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-14.txt is in your hands. What is the status? I was told on April 29 by Joel Halpern that it is "waiting certain external resolutions) so that the IESG can approve publication". What are the external factors? When can we expect publication of the PCLS? Thanks, -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lsbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Fri Jun 7 13:24:20 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04842 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA17351 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:24:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28421; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA15126 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pretender.boolean.net (root@router.boolean.net [198.144.206.49]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04297 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.11.3/8.11.1/Boolean/Hub) with ESMTP id g57HAfC78014; Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:10:41 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020607093742.024e7e90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:10:36 -0700 To: "Larry S. Bartz" From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Cc: IETF Policy WG LIST In-Reply-To: <3D00A9C5.1090509@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [Policy] Re: PCLS status? Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org At 05:40 AM 2002-06-07, Larry S. Bartz wrote: >What is the status? As far as I know, the AD is awaiting for submission of a revised I-D to address a number of issues. These include clarifications associated with the I-D's normative reference to DSP0123, an "external specification" and the addition of an "IANA Considerations" section. Kurt _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jun 12 17:00:33 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12861 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA25835 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:01:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA24672; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:52:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA24648 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email1.Acopianet.com ([65.219.235.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12635 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:51:55 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C21253.002A8AEB" Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:52:01 -0400 Message-ID: <63006F77D28ABE40AAC92887D0FF902004A5AE@email1.Acopianet.com> Thread-Topic: 'config' vs. 'policy' thread-index: AcISUwAMo14x4HAZQXq/qZm3dOEsVw== From: "Michael Carr" To: Subject: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21253.002A8AEB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for this list, but not sure who/where else to ask. =20 I'm wrestling with trying to explain to developers the difference between a 'policy' (e.g., 'if packet_type =3D X, put it on queue Y') and other switch/router 'configuration' (e.g., ethernet interface 2 autosense =3D on). What I have said thus far is that a policy is something that can be expressed in an "If condition then action" clause. Also, I've made the bold statement that static policies are part of configuration, but not all configuration data is policy. =20 But then I hear high level "policies" in the storage networking space like "Minimum backup count for file X is 2". To me this is configuration, not policy. =20 I guess I'm looking for a clearer definition. Why does it matter? When trying to design and build an extensible policy engine framework (side issue: does anyone already do this?), it helps to know the domain of the problem set first, and optimize for that domain. Throwing things that aren't really policies into such an engine might lead to a suboptimal/inefficient design with respect to the ones that really are policies. =20 Thanks in advance =20 Michael Carr ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21253.002A8AEB Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Apologize in advance=20 if this question isn't appropriate for this list, but not sure who/where = else to=20 ask.
 
I'm = wrestling with=20 trying to explain to developers the difference between a 'policy' = (e.g.,=20 'if packet_type =3D X, put it on queue Y') and other switch/router = 'configuration'=20 (e.g., ethernet interface 2 autosense =3D on).  What I have said = thus far is=20 that a policy is something that can be expressed in an "If condition = then=20 action" clause.  Also, I've made the bold statement that static = policies=20 are part of configuration, but not all configuration data is=20 policy.
 
But = then I hear high=20 level "policies" in the storage networking space like "Minimum backup = count for=20 file X is 2".  To me this is configuration, not = policy.
 
I = guess I'm looking=20 for a clearer definition.  Why does it matter?  When trying to = design=20 and build an extensible policy engine framework (side issue: does anyone = already=20 do this?), it helps to know the domain of the problem set first, and = optimize=20 for that domain.  Throwing things that aren't really policies into = such an=20 engine might lead to a suboptimal/inefficient design with respect to the = ones=20 that really are policies.
 
Thanks = in=20 advance
 
Michael=20 Carr
=00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C21253.002A8AEB-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jun 12 17:32:06 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13746 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA27935 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:32:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27165; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:26:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27135 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:26:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13637 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.17.42]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLQ9Hs024494; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JSCHNIZL-W2K1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5CLQ7GN025960; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020612171510.035a12b0@wells.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@wells.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:26:05 -0400 To: "Michael Carr" From: John Schnizlein Subject: Re: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' Cc: In-Reply-To: <63006F77D28ABE40AAC92887D0FF902004A5AE@email1.Acopianet.co m> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org Answers embedded .. At 04:52 PM 6/12/2002, Michael Carr wrote: >Apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for this list, but not sure who/where else to ask. This list is probably as good as you get, since this WG established the design team that wrote RFC 3198, which attempted to deal with your question. Without claiming that the issue is clear, you might find some guidance there. >I'm wrestling with trying to explain to developers the difference between a 'policy' (e.g., 'if packet_type = X, put it on queue Y') and other switch/router 'configuration' (e.g., ethernet interface 2 autosense = on). What I have said thus far is that a policy is something that can be expressed in an "If condition then action" clause. Also, I've made the bold statement that static policies are part of configuration, but not all configuration data is policy. I don't recall any consensus that the distinction between policy and configuration is the distinction between dynamic and static configuration. > But then I hear high level "policies" in the storage networking space like "Minimum backup count for file X is 2". To me this is configuration, not policy. We included both statements of the goal state such as "voice traffic will get less than 100 ms variation in delay across the network" and rules as possible definitions of policy, but the framework settled on rules as the way to represent policies in an information model. Without proof, we concluded that statements of goals could be re-stated as rules. >I guess I'm looking for a clearer definition. Why does it matter? When trying to design and build an extensible policy engine framework (side issue: does anyone already do this?), it helps to know the domain of the problem set first, and optimize for that domain. Throwing things that aren't really policies into such an engine might lead to a suboptimal/inefficient design with respect to the ones that really are policies. We would be gratified if our adventure in practical semantics actually mattered for a system you developed. John _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jun 12 17:35:07 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13877 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA28124 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27393; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06640 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx-relay21.treas.gov (mx-relay21.treas.gov [199.196.132.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02122 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:46:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TIAS24.net.treas.gov (tias24.treas.gov [199.196.132.24]) by mx-relay21.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5CFbkkG029981 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub-23.net.treas.gov by TIAS24.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for [199.196.132.5]) with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 15:47:02 UT Received: from irsbd2.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-23.net.treas.gov (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5CFl1KO022306 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by irsbd2.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.13.252.13]) with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 15:43:11 UT Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mears.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5CFl0216009 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:47:00 -0500 Message-ID: <3D076CF4.9050106@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:47:00 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: IRS Directory Services User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IETF Policy WG LIST Subject: Re: [Policy] Re: PCLS status? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020607093742.024e7e90@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote, On 06/07/2002 12:10 PM: >At 05:40 AM 2002-06-07, Larry S. Bartz wrote: > > >>What is the status? >> >> > >As far as I know, the AD is awaiting for submission of a >revised I-D to address a number of issues. These include >clarifications associated with the I-D's normative reference >to DSP0123, an "external specification" and the addition of >an "IANA Considerations" section. > > > How about this, PCLS authors? Will there be a fifteenth draft of PCLS? When? -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lsbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Wed Jun 12 17:45:51 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14361 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA29129 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28478; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA28448 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wolfe.bbn.com (wolfe.bbn.com [128.89.80.22]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14115 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:40:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wolfe.bbn.com (Postfix, from userid 13538) id A259016484; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:40:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Lynn To: "Michael Carr" Cc: Subject: Re: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' In-Reply-To: <63006F77D28ABE40AAC92887D0FF902004A5AE@email1.Acopianet.com> Message-Id: <20020612214008.A259016484@wolfe.bbn.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org Michael, Good question, no good answer that I've heard. > But then I hear high level "policies" in the storage networking space > like "Minimum backup count for file X is 2". To me this is > configuration, not policy. Someone said that everything is policy. Rephrasing: "If ( backup_count(X) < 2 ) then replicate(X)" "If ( exists (ethernet.interface[2]) ) then ethernet.interface[2].autosense = on" (It would be more interesting if it were "Minimum backup count for any file is 2" :-) The fun part is deciding when to test the condition. File creation, deletion, *modification*; PnP interrupts; ... Charlie _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@ns.ietf.org Thu Jun 13 14:43:43 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25613 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA13327 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12798; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA12766 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:33:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email1.Acopianet.com ([65.219.235.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25193 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:32:34 -0400 (EDT) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:32:40 -0400 Message-ID: <63006F77D28ABE40AAC92887D0FF902004A5B6@email1.Acopianet.com> Thread-Topic: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' thread-index: AcISV8Vx/waP6PfJQLOoOfcByd8JsAAr8q/A From: "Michael Carr" To: "John Schnizlein" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id OAA12767 Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, Most of the discussions I've followed, and web literature I've read regarding PBNM really falls into what could also be called template-based network management. I.e., more of a convenience-driven technology or framework, to make it easier for a manager to setup a large network of disparate devices. When I think of networking policy, I think more along the lines of a technology for programmable/configurable wire-speed decision making. Shoehorning interface_MTU into a policy statement just because it works and fits a configuration framework has performance impacting side-effects. If the underlying policy engine stores policies in an embedded database, that database is burdened with elements it could other wise jettison and achieve faster lookups, insertions, conflict detection and resolution, etc. Thoughts? Thanks --Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:26 PM > To: Michael Carr > Cc: policy@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' > > > Answers embedded .. > > At 04:52 PM 6/12/2002, Michael Carr wrote: > >Apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for > this list, > >but not sure who/where else to ask. > > This list is probably as good as you get, since this WG > established the design team that wrote RFC 3198, which > attempted to deal with your question. Without claiming that > the issue is clear, you might find some guidance there. > > >I'm wrestling with trying to explain to developers the difference > >between a 'policy' (e.g., 'if packet_type = X, put it on > queue Y') and > >other switch/router 'configuration' (e.g., ethernet interface 2 > >autosense = on). What I have said thus far is that a policy is > >something that can be expressed in an "If condition then action" > >clause. Also, I've made the bold statement that static policies are > >part of configuration, but not all configuration data is policy. > > I don't recall any consensus that the distinction between > policy and configuration is the distinction between dynamic > and static configuration. > > > But then I hear high level "policies" in the storage > networking space > > like "Minimum backup count for file X is 2". To me this is > > configuration, not policy. > > We included both statements of the goal state such as "voice > traffic will get less than 100 ms variation in delay across > the network" and rules as possible definitions of policy, but > the framework settled on rules as the way to represent > policies in an information model. Without proof, we concluded > that statements of goals could be re-stated as rules. > > >I guess I'm looking for a clearer definition. Why does it matter? > >When trying to design and build an extensible policy engine > framework > >(side issue: does anyone already do this?), it helps to know > the domain > >of the problem set first, and optimize for that domain. Throwing > >things that aren't really policies into such an engine might > lead to a > >suboptimal/inefficient design with respect to the ones that > really are > >policies. > > We would be gratified if our adventure in practical semantics > actually mattered for a system you developed. > > John > > > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From daemon@ns.ietf.org Thu Jun 13 15:22:42 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27313 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA15257 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14949; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA14919 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.10]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26822 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com [171.69.17.42]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5DJFNIZ014900; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from JSCHNIZL-W2K1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sj-msg-av-3.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5DJFF9v014920; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020613150525.01988e30@wells.cisco.com> X-Sender: jschnizl@wells.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:15:08 -0400 To: "Michael Carr" From: John Schnizlein Subject: RE: [Policy] 'config' vs. 'policy' Cc: In-Reply-To: <63006F77D28ABE40AAC92887D0FF902004A5B6@email1.Acopianet.co m> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Policy Framework X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org I think we agree that more-flexible template-based configuration for appropriate sets of network devices (not just one at a time) is a good thing. I suspect that this particular good thing is included in the goals of many of the people pursuing Policy-Based Network Management. You might have drawn the distinction between the rules that set configuration parameters based on policy (on the time-scale of when policy changes) and rule-based execution of the policy engine in the process of forwarding an individual packet more clearly than we have. There was a distinction (not captured in the evolution) between packet-level rules and those that could be translated into relatively static configuration (such as time of day) by Silvano Gai in early discussions. I am not sure how much of an inference engine (to apply the rules) people would be comfortable standardizing for operation per packet. These are just my thoughts, as requested. Other perspectives probably differ. John At 02:32 PM 6/13/2002, Michael Carr wrote: >Most of the discussions I've followed, and web literature I've read >regarding PBNM really falls into what could also be called >template-based network management. I.e., more of a convenience-driven >technology or framework, to make it easier for a manager to setup a >large network of disparate devices. When I think of networking policy, >I think more along the lines of a technology for >programmable/configurable wire-speed decision making. > >Shoehorning interface_MTU into a policy statement just because it works >and fits a configuration framework has performance impacting >side-effects. If the underlying policy engine stores policies in an >embedded database, that database is burdened with elements it could >other wise jettison and achieve faster lookups, insertions, conflict >detection and resolution, etc. > >Thoughts? _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy