From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 3 11:01:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26920 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:01:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h33G3bB28242 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:03:37 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33FupK27581; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:56:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33FthK27521 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:55:43 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26442 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:52:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from bos16960.al.bst.bls.com ([90.11.244.149] [90.11.244.149]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for policy@ietf.org; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:58:00 -0500 Received: from STD034EN866 ([90.30.215.26]) by bos16960.al.bst.bls.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA07030 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:55:21 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Steven.Wright" To: Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:55:18 -0500 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2F9CF.84932EE0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [Policy] FW: QPIM Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2F9CF.84932EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is status of Policy QoS Information Model ? Last doc I see on the website is the Nov 2001 draft. Is there an RFC available yet for reference in equipment specifications ? Question concering QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf class This allows the specification of various rates ( token rate, peak rate, resv rate etc.) How to specify the period over which this rate is calculated ? Rate is a derived value calculated as count of bits / packets over some unit time - not a direct measurement. Steven Wright Science & technology BellSouth ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2F9CF.84932EE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
What = is status of=20 Policy QoS Information Model ?
Last = doc I see on=20 the website is the Nov 2001 draft.
Is = there an RFC=20 available yet for reference in equipment=20 specifications ?
 
Question=20
concering=20 QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf  class
This = allows =20 the specification of various rates ( token rate, peak rate, resv rate=20 etc.)
How to = specify the=20 period over which this rate is calculated ?
Rate = is a derived=20 value calculated as count of bits / packets over some unit time - not a = direct=20 measurement.
 
Steven = Wright
Science &=20 technology
BellSouth
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C2F9CF.84932EE0-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 3 13:25:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05576 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h33IRYw12032 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:27:34 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33IKpK11290; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:20:51 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33IJwK11175 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:19:58 -0500 Received: from EXECDSL.COM (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA05197 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:17:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.113.114.131] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 4456648; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:19:33 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030403131617.0291b3e0@mail.stevecrocker.com> X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@mail.stevecrocker.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:18:30 -0500 To: , From: "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: [Policy] FW: QPIM In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This document is under review by our area director. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 10:55 AM 4/3/2003 -0500, Steven.Wright wrote: > > >What is status of Policy QoS Information Model ? >Last doc I see on the website is the Nov 2001 draft. >Is there an RFC available yet for reference in equipment specifications ? > >Question >concering QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf class >This allows the specification of various rates ( token rate, peak rate, >resv rate etc.) >How to specify the period over which this rate is calculated ? >Rate is a derived value calculated as count of bits / packets over some >unit time - not a direct measurement. > >Steven Wright >Science & technology >BellSouth _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 4 07:25:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA19274 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:25:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h34CS6k10671 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:28:06 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34CGZK09971; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:16:35 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34CFcK09926 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:15:38 -0500 Received: from auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18308 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h34CEpU09510 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:14:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:14:50 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155014840E0@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Policy (E-mail)" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:14:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Policy] AD review for: draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-04.txt Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Finally... and (too) long overdue. I feel ashamed :-( Oh well... here we go. I believe they are just nits, and I am willing to consider them as input to the IETF Last Call, so that all editorial changes can be made after the Last Call. Authors and WG chairs, let me know if you want to do it that way or if your rather do another rev rigth away. - The abstract should not contain any citations, see See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html - References must be split in normative and informative See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html - In general, you may want to check and make sure that you expand an acronym the first time it is used in the document. See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html - Last sentence of 1st para of sect 1.2.4 s/amethodology/methodology/ - 2nd para in sect 1.2.5 s/the QPIM standard/the QPIM specification/ I don't think the text should assume it is a standard. Standard attribute/level gets assigned separately. - Page 42 I see: PROPERTIES Antecedent[ref QoSPolicyAdmissionAction [0..n]] Dependent[ref QoSPolicyTrfcProf [1..1]] And then a bit later I see a few times QoSPolicyTrfcProfile Should that be QoSPolicyTrfcProf ?? - I see: ABSTRACT FALSE But I also see: ABSTRACT False And same for the case of TRUE/True (I believe). Would it not be better to be consistent. In the original RFC3060 we were consistent using Upper Case In the PCIMe (RFC3460) we unfortunatly also are not consistent. What a pitty - I see also inconsistent use of Upper/Mixed case in sect 8.5.1: NAME qpRSVPWarnOnly SYNTAX Boolean Default False VALUE The value TRUE means that the request should be admitted AND an RSVP warning message should be sent to the originator. The value of FALSE means that the request should be not admitted and an appropriate error message should be sent back to the originator of the request. - I see reference to [RSVP-PREEMPT], but it is not listed in the references section - I see a reference to [COPS] but I do not see it in the references section - I see page 39: 12. QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable - The RSVP message type, either Path, Resv, PathErr or ResvErr [RSVP]. And on page 63 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: Integer (An enumerated value of {PATH=1 , PATHTEAR=2, RESV=3, RESVTEAR=4, ResvErr=5, CONF=6, PATHERR} And similar stuff on other pages. Would it not be good to be consistent in using Upper/Mixed case? - I am missing an IPR statement as per rfc2026 sect 10. You do have it in RFC3460 and RFC3060. - While you are at it, you may want to update some more references in the reference section. Several docs have become RFC by now (my fault, I know). - You may also want to check for references that have been obsoleted by newer RFCs. For example RFC2751/2 have been obsoleted by RFC3181/2. Thanks, Bert p.s. I will try to do the draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt early next week. _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 4 09:39:38 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23437 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h34EgOK21037 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:42:24 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34EZdK19827; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:35:39 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34EYgK19753 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:34:42 -0500 Received: from srvmaddog.metasolv.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23133 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:31:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail.metasolv.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:38:00 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Pana, Mircea" To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" Cc: "IETF Policy (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:29:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAB6.897AE640" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAB6.897AE640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and the Policy WG? Thank you, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM To: Pana, Mircea Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will be the primary focus. What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert about) is the question of whether we can justify continuing the working group. I hope we can. Yours, Joel At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Joel, > >Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping for PCIMe >(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which conditions would >you find it appropriate to include this effort on the Policy Working Group >charter? > >Best Regards, >Mircea. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAB6.897AE640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: [Policy] One more try for interest

Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and the Policy WG?

Thank you,
Mircea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM
To: Pana, Mircea
Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest


If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will be the primary
focus.  What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert about) is the
question of whether we can justify continuing the working group.  I hope we
can.

Yours,
Joel

At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>Joel,
>
>Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping for PCIMe
>(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which conditions would
>you find it appropriate to include this effort on the Policy Working Group
>charter?
>
>Best Regards,
>Mircea.
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FAB6.897AE640-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 4 10:06:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24687 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:06:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h34F8xD23174 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:08:59 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34F2WK22082; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:02:33 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34F1KK22031 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:01:20 -0500 Received: from auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24070 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:57:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h34F0JU18114 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:00:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:00:18 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501484170@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Pana, Mircea" , "'Joel M. Halpern'" Cc: "IETF Policy (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:00:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2FABA.E7416E62" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FABA.E7416E62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" So... show me on the Policy WG mailing list that there is interest in and willingness to work on (e.g. discuss, review, possibly implement) draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Thanks, Bert -----Original Message----- From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com] Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 16:29 To: 'Joel M. Halpern' Cc: IETF Policy (E-mail) Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and the Policy WG? Thank you, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [ mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com ] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM To: Pana, Mircea Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will be the primary focus. What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert about) is the question of whether we can justify continuing the working group. I hope we can. Yours, Joel At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote: >Joel, > >Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping for PCIMe >(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which conditions would >you find it appropriate to include this effort on the Policy Working Group >charter? > >Best Regards, >Mircea. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FABA.E7416E62 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: [Policy] One more try for interest
So... show me on the Policy WG mailing list that there is
interest in and willingness to work on (e.g. discuss, review,
possibly implement) draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt
 

Thanks,
Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com]
Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 16:29
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: IETF Policy (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest

Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and the Policy WG?

Thank you,
Mircea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM
To: Pana, Mircea
Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest


If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will be the primary
focus.  What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert about) is the
question of whether we can justify continuing the working group.  I hope we
can.

Yours,
Joel

At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>Joel,
>
>Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping for PCIMe
>(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which conditions would
>you find it appropriate to include this effort on the Policy Working Group
>charter?
>
>Best Regards,
>Mircea.
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2FABA.E7416E62-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri Apr 4 10:28:35 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26264 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:28:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h34FVMZ24319 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:31:22 -0500 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34FONK23895; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:24:23 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34FNKK23859 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:23:20 -0500 Received: from splash.upc.es (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA26039 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mat.upc.es (mat.upc.es [147.83.39.3]) by splash.upc.es (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h34FMRVb009123; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:22:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mat.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F174DE84; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:22:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mat.upc.es (tele191.upc.es [147.83.39.191]) by mat.upc.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0F8DE89; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:21:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3E8D974A.CED725C3@mat.upc.es> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 16:31:38 +0200 From: Antoni Barba X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [es] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: "Pana, Mircea" , "'Joel M. Halpern'" , "IETF Policy (E-mail)" Subject: Re: [Policy] One more try for interest References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15501484170@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------837772FE422BC09366246EF0" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --------------837772FE422BC09366246EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Mr. Wijnen, In UPC we are currently working on a prototype using different openldap versions and policies in a hierarchical distributed network. We may also participate in a security draft about policies. Best regards, Antonio Barba UPC Barcelona, Spain "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" ha escrito: > So... show me on the Policy WG mailing list that there is interest in > and willingness to work on (e.g. discuss, review,possibly implement) > draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Thanks, > Bert > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com] > Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 16:29 > To: 'Joel M. Halpern' > Cc: IETF Policy (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest > > Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and > the Policy WG? > > Thank you, > Mircea. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM > To: Pana, Mircea > Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest > > If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will > be the primary > focus. What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert > about) is the > question of whether we can justify continuing the working > group. I hope we > can. > > Yours, > Joel > > At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote: > > >Joel, > > > >Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping > for PCIMe > >(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which > conditions would > >you find it appropriate to include this effort on the > Policy Working Group > >charter? > > > >Best Regards, > >Mircea. > > > --------------837772FE422BC09366246EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Mr. Wijnen,

In UPC we are currently working on a prototype using different openldap versions and policies in a hierarchical distributed network.
We  may also  participate  in a security draft about policies.

Best regards,

Antonio Barba
UPC
Barcelona, Spain

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" ha escrito:

 So... show me on the Policy WG mailing list that there is interest in and willingness to work on (e.g. discuss, review,possibly implement) draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana@metasolv.com]
Sent: vrijdag 4 april 2003 16:29
To: 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: IETF Policy (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest
 
Joel, Did you get a chance to talk to Bert about PCELS and the Policy WG?

Thank you,
Mircea.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:55 AM
To: Pana, Mircea
Subject: RE: [Policy] One more try for interest

If we can continue the working group, that work clearly will be the primary
focus.  What I am working on (and will be talking to Bert about) is the
question of whether we can justify continuing the working group.  I hope we
can.

Yours,
Joel

At 01:57 PM 2/24/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>Joel,
>
>Today we have submitted revision -01 of the LDAP mapping for PCIMe
>(draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt). Under which conditions would
>you find it appropriate to include this effort on the Policy Working Group
>charter?
>
>Best Regards,
>Mircea.
>

--------------837772FE422BC09366246EF0-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Apr 6 14:37:53 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02557 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h36IfhV26802 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:41:43 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h36ITi825662; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:29:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34MrD827398 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:53:13 -0500 Received: from chaplin.csd.uwo.ca (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11033 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:49:43 -0500 (EST) From: Hanan Lutfiyya Message-Id: <200304042252.WAA11388@brown.csd.uwo.ca> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 22:52:10 GMT To: policy-sig@doc.ic.ac.uk, policy@ietf.org Cc: hanan@csd.uwo.ca Subject: [Policy] Policy 2003: Call for Participation Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , (Please accept our apologies if you receive duplicates of this message) POLICY 2003 - Call for Participation IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks 4-6 June, 2003 Lake Como, Italy URL: http://www.labs.agilent.com/policy2003/ Policy-based systems continue to be the subject of a wide range of activities in universities, standardization bodies and within industry. They have a wide spectrum of applicability ranging from systems management, to quality of service adaptation, to security and enterprise modeling. POLICY 2003 is the fourth in a successful series of workshops, which since 1999, has brought together leading researchers and industry experts to discuss problems, solutions and experiences in developing policy-based systems. Last year, we co-located POLICY 2002 with SACMAT 2002 in order to encourage greater interaction with other communities. This turned out to be a resounding success and both communities agreed to do the same in 2003. Thus, once again, attendees will have the opportunity to register for both conferences. Registration Information ------------------------ Registration deadlines are: Advanced Registration: 14 May 2003 Further information on the workshop and registration forms can be found at: http://www.labs.agilent.com/policy2003/ Preliminary Workshop Programme ------------------------------ Wednesday 4th June 2003 08:30 - 09:15 Sign-in and Coffee 09:15 - 09:30 Welcome, Hanan Lutfiyya, Workshop Chair 09:30 - 10:30 Keynote, Andrea Westerinen 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee 11:00 - 12:30 Specification and Analysis Chisel: A Policy-Driven, Context-Aware, Dynamic Adaptation Framework John Keeney, Vinny Cahill Using UML and Maude for Writting and Reasoning about ODP Policies Francisco Duran, Javier Herrador, Antonio Vallecillo Using Event Calculus to Formalise Policy Specification and Analysis Arosha Bandara, Emil Lupu, Alessandra Russo 12:30 - 13:45 Lunch 13:45 - 15:15 Networks and Mobile Systems Prediction-Based Policy Adaptation for QoS Management in Wireless Networks Nancy Samaan, Ahmed Karmouch PECAN: Policy-Enabled Configuration Across Networks Ritu Chadha, Yuu-Heng Cheng, Narayanan Natarajan, Alex Povlisher, Shrirang Gadgil, Abdelhakin Hafid A Policy Language for Pervasive Systems Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin 15:15 - 15:45 Coffee 15:45 - 17:15 Short Papers 1 Analysis of Integrity Policies using Soft Constraints Stefano Bistarelli, Simon N Foley Trust-X: an XML Framework for Trust Negotiations Elisa Bertino, Elena Ferrari, Anna Cinzia Squicciarini Policy-based Information Management for the Joint BattleSpace Infosphere R. Cherinka, C. Wild, D. Allen, C. Smith, Y. Zhang, R. Panek Toolkit-Based Approach to Supporting Storage Policy Templates Murthy Devarakonda, Alla Segal, David Chess KAoS Policy and Domain Services: Toward a Description-Logic Approach to Policy Representation, Deconfliction and Enforcement: A. Uszok et. al. 17:30 - 18:30 Birds of a Feather Sessions (Parallel) TBA Thursday 5th June 2003 09:30 - 10:30 Invited Talk: Ronald G. Ross 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee 11:00 - 12:30 Access Control Policy Contexts: Controlling Information Flow in Parameterised RBAC Andras Belokosztolszki, David M. Eyers, Ken Moody Towards Automated Negotiation of Access Control Policies Vijay G. Bharadwaj, John S. Baras Organization based access control Cuppens, Balbiani, El Baida, Benferhat, Deswartes, Saurel, etc 12:30 - 13:45 Lunch 13:45 - 15:15 Security and Privacy Translating Privacy Practices into Privacy Promises --- How to promise what you can keep: Ganter Karjoth,, Matthias Schunter, Els Van Herreweghen Spatial Policies for Sentient Mobile Applications David Scott, Alan Mycroft, Alastair Beresford Analyzing Security-Enhanced Linux Policy Specifications Myla Archer, Elizabeth Leonard, Matteo Pradella 15:15 - 15:45 Policy Management in the Large Towards Explicit Policy Management in Virtual Organizations: Glenn Wasson, Marty Humphrey Towards Federated Policy Management Richard Hull, Bharat Kumar, Daniel Lieuwen 16:30 - 22:30 Social Event Friday 6th June 2003 9:00 - 10:30 Panel Title: TBA 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee 11:00 - 12:30 Applications Policy Based Electronic Transmission of Prescriptions David Chadwick, Darren Mundy Using Policies in the Checking of Business to Business Contracts Peter F. Linington, Stephen Neal Component Software and Policy-Driven Licensing Model Qian Zhao, Yu Zhou, Mark Perry 12:30 - 13:45 Lunch 13:45 - 15:15 Short Papers 2 Enforcing History-Based Security Policies in Mobile Agent Systems Pedro Dias, Carlos Ribeiro, Paulo Ferreira A Policy Based Approach for Automated Topology Management of Peer To Peer Networks and a Prototype Implementation Alessandro Amoroso, Antonio Di Ferdinando, Paul Mckee Inter-Domains policy negociation Fransois Barrere, Abdelmalek Benzekri, Frederic Grasset, Romain Laborde, Bassem Nasser A PBNM System for Integrated QoS and Multicast Management Lisandro Zambenedetti Granville, Leandro Vaguetti, Maria Janilce Bosquiroli Almeida, Liane Margarida Rockenbach Tarouco Enforcement of Communication Policies in Software Agent Systems through Mobile Code Niranjan Suri, Marco Carvalho, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Maggie R. Breedy, Thomas B. Cowin, Paul T. Groth _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Sun Apr 6 14:40:58 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02636 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h36Iimg26894 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:44:48 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h36ITT825644; Sun, 6 Apr 2003 14:29:29 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h33FJBK23510 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:19:11 -0500 Received: from aismtp4g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24235 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:16:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from bos16960.al.bst.bls.com ([90.11.244.149] [90.11.244.149]) by aismtp4g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP for policy@ietf.org; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:21:28 -0500 Received: from STD034EN866 ([90.30.215.26]) by bos16960.al.bst.bls.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA28586 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:18:49 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Steven.Wright" To: Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:18:42 -0500 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C2F9CA.67DDBBD0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [Policy] QPIM Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C2F9CA.67DDBBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is status of Policy QoS Information Model ? Last doc I see on the website is the Nov 2001 draft. Is there an RFC available yet for reference in equipment specifications ? Question concering QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf class This allows the specification of various rates ( token rate, peak rate, resv rate etc.) How to specify the period over which this rate is calculated ? Rate is a derived value calculated as count of bits / packets over some unit time - not a direct measurement. Steven Wright Science & technology BellSouth ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C2F9CA.67DDBBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What = is status of=20 Policy QoS Information Model ?
Last = doc I see on=20 the website is the Nov 2001 draft.
Is = there an RFC=20 available yet for reference in equipment=20 specifications ?
 
Question=20
concering=20 QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf  class
This = allows =20 the specification of various rates ( token rate, peak rate, resv rate=20 etc.)
How to = specify the=20 period over which this rate is calculated ?
Rate = is a derived=20 value calculated as count of bits / packets over some unit time - not a = direct=20 measurement.
 
Steven = Wright
Science &=20 technology
BellSouth
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C2F9CA.67DDBBD0-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 9 12:55:21 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06101 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39H0co30621 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:00:38 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39GlE829946; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:47:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39Gjq829849 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:45:52 -0400 Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05447 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h39Ggam17072 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R19QTD0>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 18:42:35 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A091@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: policy@ietf.org Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 18:42:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Policy] AD review of: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , OK, here is my review (finally... blush) - Needs to be checked against ID-NITS, see: http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html Also pls check against RFC2223bis see draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt Things that fall under this category: - no citations in abstract - split references in normative and informative - expand Acronyms when used for the first time - use proper references in the references section - is the reference to cim 2.5 correct? - not sure if the IP address as on page 7 is allowed according to ID-NITs - I see some Msoft characters in the doc (page 12 and 64 are examples) - many referenced documents have become RFCs now. You may want to update those. - I suspect that security area is too weak. Specifically if you tell people to use IPSEC, you have to explain how that is done. But... maybe you can refer to PCIM and PCIMe, similar to how you did it for QPIM. Maybe there are some extra concerns since you also derive a lot directly from CIM ?? - In the abstract, I think that the last piece needs to be removed. That is: 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. Cause that tells what "could be done" but that cannot be the "abstract" for this document, can it? - The document speaks about "this draft" a lot. I think it should be changed throughout the document into "this document". So that once it is published we do not see "this draft" anymore. - Page 11. It might help if in the figure you indicate where we find CIM, PCIM, PCIMe, QPIM, QDDIM. etc - I see (as an example on page 16/17) QoSService as a class. Then the doc talks about the plural QoSServices, and I am not sure if it always means QoSService Instances or subclasses of QoSService. At other places it talks about "QoS services" which seems better to me - Page 17 I see: Note that this work is not yet completely aligned, as there are differences among the DiffServ Informal Management Model, the DiffServ MIB, the DiffServ PIB, and this draft. Work to finish aligning these drafts is in progress, and will be reflected in the next revision of this draft. Does this mean you were expecting a new rev of QDDIM anyway? Anyway, such text probably does not belong in a doc that goes for RFC publication. - AS an example: I see on page 21 Implementations may recognize other 's in addition to these. If collisions of implementation-specific 's become a problem, it is possible that 's may become an IANA- administered range in a future revision of this standard. This document itself should not claim that it is a standard. Or at least not in the text. If it gets approved as stds track then RFC-Editor will add that in the footing. I suggest to use "this document" instead of "this standard". Pls check if there are more occurences. - The figures on pages 26 to 32 are not consistent in their use of class names and such. I can understand that you need to abbreviate becuase of space constraints, but it might be good to do so in a consistent manner, and to list the abbreviations and explain which exact Class they represent. - On page 37 you claim (at top) that "is shown in figure 9" but I think it is actually figure 10. On page 38 it should be figure 11 instead of 10 (or so I think) - I am a bit surprised to see how the descriptions of Properties is done. In the PCIM (RFC3060) it was done pretty formal, for example: NAME CN DESCRIPTION A user-friendly name of a policy-related object. SYNTAX string Another one: NAME Mandatory DESCRIPTION A flag indicating that the evaluation of the PolicyConditions and execution of PolicyActions (if the condition list evaluates to TRUE) is required. SYNTAX boolean DEFAULT VALUE TRUE Or yet anbother one: NAME SequencedActions DESCRIPTION An enumeration indicating how to interpret the action ordering indicated via the PolicyActionInPolicyRule aggregation. SYNTAX uint16 VALUES mandatory(1), recommended(2), dontCare(3) DEFAULT VALUE dontCare(3) In RFC3460 I see it done in a similar way: NAME PolicyDecisionStrategy DESCRIPTION The evaluation method used for policies contained in the PolicySet. FirstMatching enforces the actions of the first rule that evaluates to TRUE; All Matching enforces the actions of all rules that evaluate to TRUE. SYNTAX uint16 VALUES 1 [FirstMatching], 2 [AllMatching] DEFAULT VALUE 1 [FirstMatching] So why is that not followed in this document? - Does Class TockenBucketMeterService not need a deltaInterval property? Otherwise what does the AverageRate property mean? - Do we still want/need a class TosMarkerService and a property of ToSValue? Has ToS not been obsoleted? - Class REDDropperService derives from DropperService. Does the ingeritedDropperType always have the value "Random" ?? - sect 4.3.21.2 does not even tell the datatype of the property - Sect 4.3.26 I am being told that the proper name for a flow label is FlowLabel and not FlowID. Not sure how serious this is. - Section 4.3.34 I do not see any of the properties described, do I? - sect 4.3.37.2 Would it not be better to use a 32bit unsigned? - sect 4.3.37.5 May I assume that the buffers are being shared? That is not so clear from the description (at least not to me). - Sect 4.3.40 Explain what WRR stands for - sect 4.3.40.1 Here I wonder if a 16 bit unsigned would not be more than sufficient Its units are "thousands" ?? Thousands of what? - sect 4.3.4.2 Does this property not add just extra complexity? Or is that just me thinking so? And... what happens if both WeightingFactor and Priority are equal? - Sect 4.4.18 and 4.4.19 Am I missing Property descriptions? - sec 4.4.28 Am I missing Property descriptions? Thanks, Bert _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 9 13:16:08 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06741 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39HLPS32645 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:21:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39H8G831895; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:08:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39H7C831331 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:07:12 -0400 Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06338 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h39H3v729635 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R19QTMV>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:03:52 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A095@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Joel Halpern (E-mail)" , "Ed Ellesson (E-mail)" Cc: "Randy Bush (E-mail)" , Policy@ietf.org Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:03:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today. Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM. I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one: Do we really want this (still) to be standards track. My reasoning: - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish (if not dissappear completely) - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more work that could be done, should be done, and how together with that work, this would be something good. Specifically a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not interest in that. Do we? And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these docs then have? - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ? So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better? Just thinking aloud here. Pls send me your comments. Thanks, Bert _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 9 14:35:01 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09097 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:35:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39IeJv17902 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:40:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39IQv816079; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:26:57 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39IPI816022 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:25:18 -0400 Received: from aismtp1g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08504 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bos16960.al.bst.bls.com ([90.11.244.149] [90.11.244.149]) by aismtp1g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:22:17 -0400 Received: from STD034EN866 ([90.30.215.26]) by bos16960.al.bst.bls.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.8.6) with SMTP id NAA12714; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:21:50 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: From: "Steven.Wright" To: Cc: "Randy Bush \(E-mail\)" , "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" , "Joel Halpern \(E-mail\)" , "Ed Ellesson \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:21:47 -0400 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A095@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Of those service providers interested in IP QoS, I believe there is interest and potential applications for different qos policy mechanisms - -the query of a directory for qos policy information (e.g LDAP etc.) -the push of new qos configuration information to the network element ( e.g. COPS-PR, SNMPCONF etc.). A multiservice network may need to support both mechanisms at the same time. I believe the QPIM was intended to bring alignment of these other concrete schemas. I'd like to have a document to reference for some equipment specifications that I am developing. so I would like to see the QPIM progressed. Certainly, the anomalies that you pointed out need to be addressed to make it a useful specification. If this is a standards track document, then I understand your question to relate to the standard process for standards track documents where there is a requirement for interoperable implementations to be demonstrated. So if the standard concerns an abstract information model, what is the implementation anyway - a concrete schema or running code in a router? For this reason I could well see this being classified as an Informational RFC. Now look forward a little in time, let's be optimistic and assume the LDAP schema is implemented. Can the LDAP schema use the QPIM RFC as a normative specification if it is classified as Informational RFC? or must it be (re) classified as Standards track ? I don't see a rational for calling it experimental, but I'm willing to be educated. Regarding QPIM/QDDIM/LDAP Schema relationships, is there a need for an Applicability statement - would that be the appropriate way to handle it? Steven Wright Science & Technology BellSouth > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:04 PM > To: Joel Halpern (E-mail); Ed Ellesson (E-mail) > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); Policy@ietf.org > Subject: [Policy] What to do with: > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt > > > I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today. > > Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM. > > I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one: > > Do we really want this (still) to be standards track. > > My reasoning: > > - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish > (if not dissappear completely) > > - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more > work that could be done, should be done, and how together > with that work, this would be something good. Specifically > a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not > interest in that. Do we? > And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these > docs then have? > > - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an > LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ? > > So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better? > > Just thinking aloud here. > Pls send me your comments. > > Thanks, > Bert > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 9 17:27:03 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15538 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h39LWPf30431 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:32:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39LLw829994; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:21:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39LKo829964 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:20:50 -0400 Received: from auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA15002 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:14:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h39LHSX15691 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:17:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R19QVYR>; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:17:28 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A0AE@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: steven.wright@BellSouth.com, Policy@ietf.org Cc: "Randy Bush (E-mail)" , "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" , "Joel Halpern (E-mail)" , "Ed Ellesson (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-m odel-08.txt Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:17:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , So are you offering your services to help write the required specs and/or review and/or implement and/or deploy? Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven.Wright [mailto:steven.wright@BellSouth.com] > Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 20:22 > To: Policy@ietf.org > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Joel Halpern (E-mail); > Ed Ellesson (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt > > > Of those service providers interested in IP QoS, > I believe there is interest and potential applications for > different qos > policy mechanisms - > -the query of a directory for qos policy information (e.g LDAP etc.) > -the push of new qos configuration information to the network > element ( e.g. > COPS-PR, SNMPCONF etc.). > A multiservice network may need to support both mechanisms at > the same time. > I believe the QPIM was intended to bring alignment of these > other concrete > schemas. > > I'd like to have a document to reference for some equipment > specifications > that I am developing. > so I would like to see the QPIM progressed. Certainly, the > anomalies that > you pointed out need to be addressed to make it a useful > specification. > > If this is a standards track document, then I understand your > question to > relate to the standard process for standards track documents > where there is > a requirement for interoperable implementations to be > demonstrated. So if > the standard concerns an abstract information model, what is the > implementation anyway - a concrete schema or running code in > a router? For > this reason I could well see this being classified as an > Informational RFC. > > Now look forward a little in time, let's be optimistic and > assume the LDAP > schema is implemented. Can the LDAP schema use the QPIM RFC > as a normative > specification if it is classified as Informational RFC? or > must it be (re) > classified as Standards track ? > > I don't see a rational for calling it experimental, but I'm > willing to be > educated. > > Regarding QPIM/QDDIM/LDAP Schema relationships, is there a need for an > Applicability statement - would that be the appropriate way > to handle it? > > Steven Wright > Science & Technology > BellSouth > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:04 PM > > To: Joel Halpern (E-mail); Ed Ellesson (E-mail) > > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); Policy@ietf.org > > Subject: [Policy] What to do with: > > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt > > > > > > I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today. > > > > Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM. > > > > I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one: > > > > Do we really want this (still) to be standards track. > > > > My reasoning: > > > > - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish > > (if not dissappear completely) > > > > - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more > > work that could be done, should be done, and how together > > with that work, this would be something good. Specifically > > a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not > > interest in that. Do we? > > And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these > > docs then have? > > > > - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an > > LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ? > > > > So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better? > > > > Just thinking aloud here. > > Pls send me your comments. > > > > Thanks, > > Bert > > _______________________________________________ > > Policy mailing list > > Policy@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy > > > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 10 04:44:40 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12190 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3A8oF422730 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:50:15 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3A8b3821052; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:37:05 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3A8Xp820727 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:33:51 -0400 Received: from tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11735 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from venus.office (venus.office [10.1.1.11]) by tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3A8UEVI028873; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:30:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.1.1.130] (brunner.office [10.1.1.130]) by venus.office (Postfix on SuSE Linux eMail Server 3.0) with ESMTP id 2B0FEC0F7; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:27:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:30:14 +0200 From: Marcus Brunner Reply-To: Marcus Brunner To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , "Joel Halpern (E-mail)" , "Ed Ellesson (E-mail)" Cc: "Randy Bush (E-mail)" , Policy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Message-ID: <4382121.1049970614@[10.1.1.130]> In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A095@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A095@nl0006exch001u.nl.luce nt.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have no problem to make it Informational or Experimental. Marcus --On Mittwoch, 9. April 2003 19:03 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote: > I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today. > > Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM. > > I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one: > > Do we really want this (still) to be standards track. > > My reasoning: > > - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish > (if not dissappear completely) > > - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more > work that could be done, should be done, and how together > with that work, this would be something good. Specifically > a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not > interest in that. Do we? > And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these > docs then have? > > - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an > LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ? > > So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better? > > Just thinking aloud here. > Pls send me your comments. > > Thanks, > Bert > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy -------------------------------------- Dr. Marcus Brunner Network Laboratories NEC Europe Ltd. E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29 personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 10 06:26:48 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14324 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3AAWQx29868 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:32:26 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3AAMP829378; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:22:25 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3AAIa829129 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:18:36 -0400 Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA13980 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 06:12:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xbe-ams-313.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h3AACtmj010345; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:12:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from xbe-lon-313.cisco.com ([64.103.99.73]) by xbe-ams-313.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:14:41 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6410.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:14:41 +0100 Message-ID: <12CFFBB20399CB44A683155B8D442D5B1F2A26@xbe-lon-313.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt Thread-Index: AcL/O/X8OZZbDIYIRoCG73xv97CGiAADXDng From: "Yoram Snir (ysnir)" To: "Marcus Brunner" , "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , "Joel Halpern (E-mail)" , "Ed Ellesson (E-mail)" Cc: "Randy Bush (E-mail)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2003 10:14:41.0848 (UTC) FILETIME=[005BE380:01C2FF4A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h3AAIb829130 Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I suggest we go ahead on plan. One of the reasons for the perceived lack of interest is the fact that moving along the ietf review process was extremely slow. The original reasoning behind the work is still there and we feel it is useful, whether or not, LDAP schema is created by the WG. Not all implementations are LDAP based. Yoram > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Brunner [mailto:brunner@ccrle.nec.de] > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:30 AM > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Joel Halpern (E-mail); Ed Ellesson (E-mail) > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); Policy@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Policy] What to do with: > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt > > > I have no problem to make it Informational or Experimental. Marcus > > --On Mittwoch, 9. April 2003 19:03 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" > wrote: > > > I have posted my AD review to the policy WG mailing list today. > > > > Last week Friday I posted my review of QPIM. > > > > I wonder... for both documents, but specifically for this one: > > > > Do we really want this (still) to be standards track. > > > > My reasoning: > > > > - We (or at least I) have seen interest in this space dimish > > (if not dissappear completely) > > > > - The document has a lot of places where it talks about more > > work that could be done, should be done, and how together > > with that work, this would be something good. Specifically > > a mapping to LDAP Schema . But as far as I know, we see not > > interest in that. Do we? > > And then, if no such docs will ever show up, what use do these > > docs then have? > > > > - I believe I saw some ( a little) interest expressed to do an > > LDAP Schema mapping. But not for QPIM and QDDIM, do I ? > > > > So maybe Informational or Experiemntal is better? > > > > Just thinking aloud here. > > Pls send me your comments. > > > > Thanks, > > Bert > > _______________________________________________ > > Policy mailing list > > Policy@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy > > > > -------------------------------------- > Dr. Marcus Brunner > Network Laboratories > NEC Europe Ltd. > > E-Mail: brunner@ccrle.nec.de > WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/ > Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29 > personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 10 08:36:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17970 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:36:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3ACfwr06940 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:41:58 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3ACVi805536; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:31:44 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3ACUD805436 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:30:13 -0400 Received: from mx-relay21.treas.gov (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17293 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:24:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TIAS24.net.treas.gov (tias24.treas.gov [199.196.132.24]) by mx-relay21.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h3ACDPjJ028965; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by TIAS24.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for [199.196.132.5]) with SMTP; 10 Apr 2003 12:26:36 UT Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-22.net.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3ACQUKp018747; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:26:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.13.252.12]) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:26:30 -0400 Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (IDENT:lsbart35@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by big-al.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h3ACQTb17565; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:26:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3E9562F5.5090208@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:26:29 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: Internal Revenue Service User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" CC: policy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt References: In-Reply-To: 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-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It has been more than five months since we were advised that the PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published? Larry Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 11/14/02 08:25: > It is impossible to say when the RFC will be published. You can > track the progress at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html > > Experience tells us that it takes from one to a couple of months. > > Hope this helps > Bert > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov] >>Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 13:15 >>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >>Cc: policy@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt >> >> >>Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 10/31/2002 12:52 PM: >> >>>The IESG just approved this document. >>>Formal announcement to be posted by IESG secretary >>>in a few days. >> >>My ecstasy over this event has cooled somewhat. But I am >>fully prepared to be thrilled again. When will the RFC >>be published? >> >> _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Thu Apr 10 10:18:46 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21990 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3AEOSF14433 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:24:28 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3AEB1813733; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:11:01 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3AE8J813565 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:08:19 -0400 Received: from aismtp2g.bellsouth.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20419 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bos16960.al.bst.bls.com ([90.11.244.149] [90.11.244.149]) by aismtp2g.bellsouth.com with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:04:46 -0400 Received: from STD034EN866 ([90.30.215.26]) by bos16960.al.bst.bls.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA29228; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:04:38 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: From: "Steven.Wright" To: "'Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)'" , Cc: "Randy Bush \(E-mail\)" , "Joel Halpern \(E-mail\)" , "Ed Ellesson \(E-mail\)" Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-m odel-08.txt Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:04:34 -0400 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550159A0AE@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yes. I have in the past co-authored internet drafts in the policy area. I expect to be able to provide review comments where appropriate. My employer is currently actively considering issues related to the deployment of policy based QoS technology. Steven Wright > -----Original Message----- > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:17 PM > To: steven.wright@BellSouth.com; Policy@ietf.org > Cc: Randy Bush (E-mail); 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Joel Halpern (E-mail); > Ed Ellesson (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Policy] What to do with: > draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-m odel-08.txt > > > So are you offering your services to help write the required > specs and/or review and/or implement and/or deploy? > > Thanks, > Bert > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 21 11:08:13 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19170 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3LFJJK04746 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:19:19 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3LFFG804553; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:15:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3LFDJ804490 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:13:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA18894 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197cpx-0000ns-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:04:05 -0400 Received: from mx-relay2.treas.gov ([199.196.144.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197cpw-0000np-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:04:04 -0400 Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay2.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h3LF4LIB011997 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:04:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 15:04:21 UT Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-2.net.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3LF4F5Q010045 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:04:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mailhub-2.net.treas.gov: iscan owned process doing -bs Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.7.8.10]) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:04:15 -0400 Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (IDENT:lsbart35@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by big-al.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h3LF4Bb12511 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:04:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3EA4086B.3010304@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:04:11 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: Internal Revenue Service User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: policy@ietf.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] 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-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My original post of this message is hung up, awaiting approval by the list moderator. I had included a large attachment which exceeds the size limit imposed by the list config. In the meantime... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:38:43 -0500 From: Larry S. Bartz Organization: Internal Revenue Service To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) , policy@ietf.org, Joel M. Halpern , Ed Ellesson , rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org References: <3E9562F5.5090208@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 04/10/03 07:26: > It has been more than five months since we were advised that the > PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published? > PROBLEM: When I looked at the RFC Editor's queue a few weeks ago, I didn't see a definition of the "REF" status which had been assigned to draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt. Now the reason for the lack of further action on PCLS is clear. PCLS is stuck. It is waiting for an event which will apparently never happen. Without some overt remedial action, PCLS cannot become an RFC. The draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt cites another draft, draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt, as a normative reference. The RFC Editor's assignment of the "REF" status to PCLS acknowledges this dependency, as "holding for normative reference". The problem lies in the fact that draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema- 06.txt expired in November 2002. It has not been superseded by an "07" version. This leaves PCLS dependent upon a document which is obviously not a work in progress. PCLS cannot move forward under this condition. REMEDY: This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft. Simply removing the reference to the expired draft will free PCLS of its dependency. This should allow PCLS to proceed to the intermediate step of OID assignment by IANA, then on to publication as an RFC. On close inspection of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt, it appears that the dependency on the now-expired draft-zeilenga-ldap- user-schema-06.txt is not necessary. PCLS cites the expired draft as one of three normative references for the definitions of matching rules. The other mormative references cited by PCLS for matching rules include RFC3377 (which, in turn, defers to RFC2252), and X.520. Together, RFC3377 (and its normative references) and X.520 define all of the matching rules which are employed by PCLS. Relieving draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt of its unecessary dependency upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt requires the following edits: ###### under "5. Class Definitions", page 18, third paragraph: #### FROM THIS: Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all LDAP matching rules are defined in [3] and in [9]. The corresponding X.500 matching rules are defined in [8]. #### TO THIS: Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all matching rules are defined in [3] and in [8]. ###### under "11. Normative References", page 52 #### elide this: [9] K. Zeilenga, ed., "LDAPv3: A Collection of User Schema", , May 2002. ###### under "12. Informative References", page 53 #### renumber references 10 through 16 as 9 through 15 #### repair citations of these references throughout document as necessary to accomodate renumbering I have attached an edited version of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema- 16.txt to this messge. This document differs from the original only in the changes I described above. I have named it draft-ietf-policy- core-schema-16a.txt HOW-TO? Can the RFC Editor effect these changes to the current WG-approved and IESG-approved draft and send it on its way? Or must the draft come back to the WG for edit? If so, must it then go all the way back through WG Last Call and IESG review and approval? -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| > > > > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 11/14/02 08:25: > >> It is impossible to say when the RFC will be published. You can >> track the progress at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html >> >> Experience tells us that it takes from one to a couple of months. >> >> Hope this helps >> Bert >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov] >>> Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 13:15 >>> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >>> Cc: policy@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt >>> >>> >>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 10/31/2002 12:52 PM: >>> >>>> The IESG just approved this document. >>>> Formal announcement to be posted by IESG secretary >>>> in a few days. >>> >>> >>> My ecstasy over this event has cooled somewhat. But I am >>> fully prepared to be thrilled again. When will the RFC >>> be published? >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 21 21:16:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11135 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3M1Rgn12371 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:27:42 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3M1Nl812235; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:23:47 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3LKK0825426 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:20:00 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00055 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197hce-0002yU-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:10:40 -0400 Received: from router.boolean.net ([198.144.206.49] helo=pretender.boolean.net ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197hcd-0002yQ-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:10:39 -0400 Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (kurt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3LKAxDV026628 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:10:59 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030421120455.02596b18@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:08:44 -0700 To: policy@ietf.org From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Larry, Like any other RFC-to-be, draft-ietf-policy-core-schema has to wait on its normative references. draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is still an active "work in progress" ("expire" dates can be misleading as "in process" I-Ds don't expire). See the I-D data tracker for current status. draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema appears (from the available I-D data tracker details) to have been approved by the IESG. So this thread seems moot. > This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft. No. PCLS defines elements of LDAP schema dependent on LDAP matching rules which, at present, are not specified in any standard track document. While X.520(93) defined X.500 corresponding matching rules, it does not define any LDAP matching rules. As X.500 matching rules have to be adapted for use in LDAP (as demonstrated in RFC 2252), referencing X.520 is not sufficient. The PCLS's normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap- user-schema is correct and proper. No action is needed by the Policy WG. Kurt _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Mon Apr 21 21:16:47 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11149 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3M1S6V12393 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:28:06 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3M1NS812215; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:23:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3LElu802598 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:47:56 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18173 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197cRO-0000gn-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:38:42 -0400 Received: from mx-relay21.treas.gov ([199.196.132.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197cRL-0000gk-00 for policy@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:38:39 -0400 Received: from TIAS24.net.treas.gov (tias24.treas.gov [199.196.132.24]) by mx-relay21.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h3LEPYjJ003124; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:25:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by TIAS24.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for [199.196.132.5]) with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 14:38:54 UT Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-21.net.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3LEcjPT003017; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:38:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mailhub-21.net.treas.gov: iscan owned process doing -bs Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.13.252.11]) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:38:45 -0400 Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (IDENT:lsbart35@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by big-al.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h3LEcib12480; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:38:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3EA40273.1090009@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:38:43 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: Internal Revenue Service User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" , policy@ietf.org, "Joel M. Halpern" , Ed Ellesson , rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt References: <3E9562F5.5090208@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> In-Reply-To: <3E9562F5.5090208@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030309010204010404020705" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030309010204010404020705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 04/10/03 07:26: > It has been more than five months since we were advised that the > PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published? > PROBLEM: When I looked at the RFC Editor's queue a few weeks ago, I didn't see a definition of the "REF" status which had been assigned to draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt. Now the reason for the lack of further action on PCLS is clear. PCLS is stuck. It is waiting for an event which will apparently never happen. Without some overt remedial action, PCLS cannot become an RFC. The draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt cites another draft, draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt, as a normative reference. The RFC Editor's assignment of the "REF" status to PCLS acknowledges this dependency, as "holding for normative reference". The problem lies in the fact that draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema- 06.txt expired in November 2002. It has not been superseded by an "07" version. This leaves PCLS dependent upon a document which is obviously not a work in progress. PCLS cannot move forward under this condition. REMEDY: This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft. Simply removing the reference to the expired draft will free PCLS of its dependency. This should allow PCLS to proceed to the intermediate step of OID assignment by IANA, then on to publication as an RFC. On close inspection of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt, it appears that the dependency on the now-expired draft-zeilenga-ldap- user-schema-06.txt is not necessary. PCLS cites the expired draft as one of three normative references for the definitions of matching rules. The other mormative references cited by PCLS for matching rules include RFC3377 (which, in turn, defers to RFC2252), and X.520. Together, RFC3377 (and its normative references) and X.520 define all of the matching rules which are employed by PCLS. Relieving draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt of its unecessary dependency upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt requires the following edits: ###### under "5. Class Definitions", page 18, third paragraph: #### FROM THIS: Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all LDAP matching rules are defined in [3] and in [9]. The corresponding X.500 matching rules are defined in [8]. #### TO THIS: Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all matching rules are defined in [3] and in [8]. ###### under "11. Normative References", page 52 #### elide this: [9] K. Zeilenga, ed., "LDAPv3: A Collection of User Schema", , May 2002. ###### under "12. Informative References", page 53 #### renumber references 10 through 16 as 9 through 15 #### repair citations of these references throughout document as necessary to accomodate renumbering I have attached an edited version of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema- 16.txt to this messge. This document differs from the original only in the changes I described above. I have named it draft-ietf-policy- core-schema-16a.txt HOW-TO? Can the RFC Editor effect these changes to the current WG-approved and IESG-approved draft and send it on its way? Or must the draft come back to the WG for edit? If so, must it then go all the way back through WG Last Call and IESG review and approval? -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov | Ooo, ooo, | # | Ooo, ooo, oooooo! | # | I've got a gnu attitude! | # voice (317) 226-7060 | | # FAX (317) 226-6378 | | #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| > > > > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 11/14/02 08:25: > >> It is impossible to say when the RFC will be published. You can >> track the progress at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html >> >> Experience tells us that it takes from one to a couple of months. >> >> Hope this helps >> Bert >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:lbartz@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov] >>> Sent: donderdag 14 november 2002 13:15 >>> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >>> Cc: policy@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt >>> >>> >>> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 10/31/2002 12:52 PM: >>> >>>> The IESG just approved this document. >>>> Formal announcement to be posted by IESG secretary >>>> in a few days. >>> >>> >>> My ecstasy over this event has cooled somewhat. But I am >>> fully prepared to be thrilled again. When will the RFC >>> be published? >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy --------------030309010204010404020705 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16a.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16a.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Policy Framework Working Group J. Strassner Internet-draft Intelliden Corporation Category: Standards Track B. Moore IBM Corporation R. Moats Lemur Networks, Inc. E. Ellesson October 2002 Policy Core LDAP Schema draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document defines a mapping of the Policy Core Information Model to a form that can be implemented in a directory that uses Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) as its access protocol. This model defines two hierarchies of object classes: structural classes representing information for representing and controlling policy data as specified in RFC3060, and relationship classes that indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each other. Classes are also added to the LDAP schema to improve the performance of a client's interactions with an LDAP server when the client is retrieving large amounts of policy-related information. These classes exist only to optimize LDAP retrievals: there are no classes in the information model that correspond to them. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. The Policy Core Information Model 4 3. Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS 5 4. General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP 6 4.1. Summary of Class and Association Mappings 7 4.2. Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms 9 4.3. Naming Attributes in the PCLS 10 4.4. Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions 11 4.5. Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the Directory 15 4.5.1. Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques 17 5. Class Definitions 18 5.1. The Abstract Class "pcimPolicy" 19 5.2. The Three Policy Group Classes 20 5.3. The Three Policy Rule Classes 22 5.4. The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation 28 5.5. The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation 30 5.6. The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation 31 5.7. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass 33 5.8. The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass 34 5.9. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass 37 5.10. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass 38 5.11. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass 38 5.12. The Class pcimPolicyInstance 40 5.13. The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass 41 5.14. The Three Policy Repository Classes 41 5.15. The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass 43 5.16. The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass 44 5.17. The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass 45 6. Extending the Classes Defined in This Document 47 6.1. Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass 47 6.2. Using the Vendor Policy Attributes 47 6.3. Using Time Validity Periods 47 7. Security Considerations 48 8. IANA Considerations 49 8.1. Object Identifiers 49 8.2. Object Identifier Descriptors 50 9. Intellectual Property 51 10. Acknowledgments 52 11. Normative References 53 12. Informative References 54 13. Authors' Addresses 55 14. Full Copyright Statement 56 15. Appendix: Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys 57 Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 PLEASE NOTE: OIDs for the schema elements in this document have not been assigned. This note to be removed by the RFC editor before publication. All uses of OIDs are indicated symbolically: for example, IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.1 is a placeholder that will be replaced by a real OID that is assigned by IANA before publication. 1. Introduction This document takes as its starting point the object-oriented information model for representing information for representing and controlling policy data as specified in [1]. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) [2] implementers, please note that the use of the term "policy" in this document does not refer to the use of the term "policy" as defined in X.501 [4]. Rather, the use of the term "policy" throughout this document is defined as follows: Policy is defined as a set of rules to administer, manage, and control access to network resources. This work is currently under joint development in the IETF's Policy Framework working group and in the Policy working group of the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). This model defines two hierarchies of object classes: structural classes representing policy information and control of policies, and relationship classes that indicate how instances of the structural classes are related to each other. In general, both of these class hierarchies will need to be mapped to a particular data store. This draft defines the mapping of these information model classes to a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol. Two types of mappings are involved: - For the structural classes in the information model, the mapping is basically one-for-one: information model classes map to LDAP classes, information model properties map to LDAP attributes. - For the relationship classes in the information model, different mappings are possible. In this document, the Policy Core Information Model's (PCIM's) relationship classes and their properties are mapped in three ways: to LDAP auxiliary classes, to attributes representing distinguished name (DN) references, and to superior-subordinate relationships in the Directory Information Tree (DIT). Implementations that use an LDAP directory as their policy repository and want to implement policy information according to RFC3060 [1] SHALL use the LDAP schema defined in this document, or a schema that subclasses from the schema defined in this document. The use of the information model defined in reference [1] as the starting point enables the inheritance and the relationship class hierarchies to be extensible, such that other types of policy repositories, such as relational databases, can also use this information. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 This document fits into the overall framework for representing, deploying, and managing policies being developed by the Policy Framework Working Group. The LDAP schema described in this document uses the prefix "pcim" to identify its classes and attributes. It consists of ten very general classes: pcimPolicy (an abstract class), three policy group classes (pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance), three policy rule classes (pcimRule, pcimRuleAuxClass, and pcimRuleInstance), and three special auxiliary classes (pcimConditionAuxClass, pcimTPCAuxClass, and pcimActionAuxClass). (Note that the PolicyTimePeriodCondition auxiliary class defined in [1] would normally have been named pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass, but this name is too long for some directories. Therefore, we have abbreviated this name to be pcimTPCAuxClass). The mapping for the PCIM classes pcimGroup and pcimRule is designed to be as flexible as possible. An abstract superclass is defined that contains all required properties, and then both an auxiliary class as well as a structural class are derived from it. This provides maximum flexibility for the developer. The schema also contains two less general classes: pcimConditionVendorAuxClass and pcimActionVendorAuxClass. To achieve the mapping of the information model's relationships, the schema also contains two auxiliary classes: pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass and pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass. Capturing the distinction between rule- specific and reusable policy conditions and policy actions introduces seven other classes: pcimRuleConditionAssociation, pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation, pcimPolicyInstance, and three policy repository classes (pcimRepository, pcimRepositoryAuxClass, and pcimRepositoryInstance). Finally, the schema includes two classes (pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass and pcimElementAuxClass) for optimizing LDAP retrievals. In all, the schema contains 23 classes. Within the context of this document, the term "PCLS" (Policy Core LDAP Schema) is used to refer to the LDAP class definitions that this document contains. The term "PCIM" refers to classes defined in [1]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [9]. 2. The Policy Core Information Model This document contains an LDAP schema representing the classes defined in the companion document "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification" [1]. Other documents may subsequently be produced, with mappings of this same PCIM to other storage technologies. Since the detailed semantics of the PCIM classes appear only in [1], that document is a prerequisite for reading and understanding this document. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 3. Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS The following diagram illustrates the class hierarchy for the LDAP Classes defined in this document: top | +--dlm1ManagedElement (abstract) | | | +--pcimPolicy (abstract) | | | | | +--pcimGroup (abstract) | | | | | | | +--pcimGroupAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | | | | | +--pcimGroupInstance (structural) | | | | | +--pcimRule (abstract) | | | | | | | +--pcimRuleAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | | | | | +--pcimRuleInstance (structural) | | | | | +--pcimRuleConditionAssociation (structural) | | | | | +--pcimRuleValidityAssociation (structural) | | | | | +--pcimRuleActionAssociation (structural) | | | | | +--pcimPolicyInstance (structural) | | | | | +--pcimElementAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | +--dlm1ManagedSystemElement (abstract) | | | +--dlm1LogicalElement (abstract) | | | +--dlm1System (abstract) | | | +--dlm1AdminDomain (abstract) | | | +--pcimRepository (abstract) | | | +--pcimRepositoryAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | +--pcimRepositoryInstance | (structural) (continued on following page) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 (continued from previous page) top | +--pcimConditionAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | +---pcimTPCAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | +---pcimConditionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary) | +--pcimActionAuxClass (auxiliary) | | | +---pcimActionVendorAuxClass (auxiliary) | +--pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass (auxiliary) | +--pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary) | +--pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass (auxiliary) Figure 1. LDAP Class Inheritance Hierarchy for the PCLS 4. General Discussion of Mapping the Information Model to LDAP The classes described in Section 5 below contain certain optimizations for a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol. One example of this is the use of auxiliary classes to represent some of the associations defined in the information model. Other data stores might need to implement these associations differently. A second example is the introduction of classes specifically designed to optimize retrieval of large amounts of policy-related data from a directory. This section discusses some general topics related to the mapping from the information model to LDAP. The remainder of this section will discuss the following topics. Section 4.1 will discuss the strategy used in mapping the classes and associations defined in [1] to a form that can be represented in a directory that uses LDAP as its access protocol. Section 4.2 discusses DIT content and structure rules, as well as name forms. Section 4.3 describes the strategy used in defining naming attributes for the schema described in Section 5 of this document. Section 4.4 defines the strategy recommended for locating and retrieving PCIM-derived objects in the directory. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 4.1. Summary of Class and Association Mappings Fifteen of the classes in the PCLS come directly from the nine corresponding classes in the information model. Note that names of classes begin with an upper case character in the information model (although for CIM in particular, case is not significant in class and property names), but with a lower case character in LDAP. This is because although LDAP doesn't care, X.500 doesn't allow class names to begin with an uppercase character. Note also that the prefix "pcim" is used to identify these LDAP classes. +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Information Model | LDAP Class(es) | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Policy | pcimPolicy | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyGroup | pcimGroup | | | pcimGroupAuxClass | | | pcimGroupInstance | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyRule | pcimRule | | | pcimRuleAuxClass | | | pcimRuleInstance | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyCondition | pcimConditionAuxClass | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyAction | pcimActionAuxClass | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | VendorPolicyCondition | pcimConditionVendorAuxClass | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | VendorPolicyAction | pcimActionVendorAuxClass | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyTimePeriodCondition | pcimTPCAuxClass | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | PolicyRepository | pcimRepository | | | pcimRepositoryAuxClass | | | pcimRepositoryInstance | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ Figure 2. Mapping of Information Model Classes to LDAP The associations in the information model map to attributes that reference DNs (Distinguished Names) or to Directory Information Tree (DIT) containment (i.e., superior-subordinate relationships) in LDAP. Two of the attributes that reference DNs appear in auxiliary classes, which allow each of them to represent several relationships from the information model. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 7] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 +----------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | Information Model Association | LDAP Attribute / Class | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup | pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in | | | pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup | pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in | | | pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyConditionInPolicyRule | DIT containment or | | | pcimRuleConditionList in | | | pcimRule or | | | pcimConditionDN in | | | pcimRuleConditionAssociation | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyActionInPolicyRule | DIT containment or | | | pcimRuleActionList in | | | pcimRule or | | | pcimActionDN in | | | pcimRuleActionAssociation | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyRuleValidityPeriod | pcimRuleValidityPeriodList | | | in pcimRule or (if reusable) | | | referenced through the | | | pcimTimePeriodConditionDN in | | | pcimRuleValidityAssociation | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyConditionInPolicyRepository | DIT containment | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyActionInPolicyRepository | DIT containment | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | PolicyRepositoryInPolicyRepository| DIT containment | +-----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ Figure 3. Mapping of Information Model Associations to LDAP Of the remaining classes in the PCLS, two (pcimElementAuxClass and pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass) are included to make navigation through the DIT and retrieval of the entries found there more efficient. This topic is discussed in Section 4.5 below. The remaining four classes in the PCLS, pcimRuleConditionAssociation, pcimRuleValidityAssociation, pcimRuleActionAssociation, and pcimPolicyInstance, are all involved with the representation of policy conditions and policy actions in an LDAP directory. This topic is discussed in Section 4.4 below. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 8] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 4.2 Usage of DIT Content and Structure Rules and Name Forms There are three powerful tools that can be used to help define schemata. The first, DIT content rules, is a way of defining the content of an entry for a structural object class. It can be used to specify the following characteristics of the entry: - additional mandatory attributes that the entries are required to contain - additional optional attributes the entries are allowed to contain - the set of additional auxiliary object classes that these entries are allowed to be members of - any optional attributes from the structural and auxiliary object class definitions that the entries are required to preclude DIT content rules are NOT mandatory for any structural object class. A DIT structure rule, together with a name form, controls the placement and naming of an entry within the scope of a subschema. Name forms define which attribute type(s) are required and are allowed to be used in forming the Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs) of entries. DIT structure rules specify which entries are allowed to be superior to other entries, and hence control the way that RDNs are added together to make DNs. A name form specifies the following: - the structural object class of the entries named by this name form - attributes that are required to be used in forming the RDNs of these entries - attributes that are allowed to be used in forming the RDNs of these entries - an object identifier to uniquely identify this name form Note that name forms can only be specified for structural object classes. However, every entry in the DIT must have a name form controlling it. Unfortunately, current LDAP servers vary quite a lot in their support of these features. There are also three crucial implementation points that must be followed. First, X.500 use of structure rules requires that a structural object class with no superior structure rule be a subschema administrative point. This is exactly NOT what we want for policy information. Second, when an auxiliary class is subclassed, if a content rule exists for the structural class that the auxiliary class refers to, then that content rule needs to be augmented. Finally, most LDAP servers unfortunately do not support inheritance of structure and content rules. Given these concerns, DIT structure and content rules have been removed from the PCLS. This is because, if included, they would be normative references and would require OIDs. However, we don't want to lose the insight gained in building the structure and content rules of the previous version of the schema. Therefore, we describe where such rules could be used in this schema, what they would control, and what their effect would be. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 9] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 4.3. Naming Attributes in the PCLS Instances in a directory are identified by distinguished names (DNs), which provide the same type of hierarchical organization that a file system provides in a computer system. A distinguished name is a sequence of RDNs. An RDN provides a unique identifier for an instance within the context of its immediate superior, in the same way that a filename provides a unique identifier for a file within the context of the folder in which it resides. To preserve maximum naming flexibility for policy administrators, three optional (i.e., "MAY") naming attributes have been defined. They are: - Each of the structural classes defined in this schema has its own unique ("MAY") naming attribute. Since the naming attributes are different, a policy administrator can, by using these attributes, guarantee that there will be no name collisions between instances of different classes, even if the same value is assigned to the instances' respective naming attributes. - The LDAP attribute cn (corresponding to X.500's commonName) is included as a MAY attribute in the abstract class pcimPolicy, and thus by inheritance in all of its subclasses. In X.500, commonName typically functions as an RDN attribute, for naming instances of many classes (e.g., X.500's person class). - A special attribute is provided for implementations that expect to map between native CIM and LDAP representations of policy information. This attribute, called orderedCimKeys, is defined in the class dlm1ManagedElement [6]. The value of this attribute is derived algorithmically from values that are already present in a CIM policy instance. The normative reference for this algorithm is contained in [6]. See the appendix of this document for a description of the algorithm. Since any of these naming attributes MAY be used for naming an instance of a PCLS class, implementations MUST be able to accommodate instances named in any of these ways. Note that it is recommended that two or more of these attributes SHOULD NOT be used together to form a multi-part RDN, since support for multi- part RDNs is limited among existing directory implementations. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 10] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 4.4. Rule-Specific and Reusable Conditions and Actions The PCIM [1] distinguishes between two types of policy conditions and policy actions: ones associated with a single policy rule, and ones that are reusable, in the sense that they may be associated with more than one policy rule. While there is no inherent functional difference between a rule-specific condition or action and a reusable one, there is both a usage as well as an implementation difference between them. Defining a condition or action as reusable vs. rule-specific reflects a conscious decision on the part of the administrator in defining how they are used. In addition, there are differences that reflect the difference in implementing rule-specific vs. reusable policy conditions and actions in how they are treated in a policy repository. The major implementation differences between a rule-specific and a reusable condition or actionare delineated below: 1. It is natural for a rule-specific condition or action to be removed from the policy repository at the same time the rule is. It is just the opposite for reusable conditions and actions. This is because the condition or action is conceptually attached to the rule in the rule-specific case, whereas it is referenced (e.g., pointed at) in the reusable case. The persistence of a pcimRepository instance is independent of the persistence of a pcimRule instance. 2. Access permissions for a rule-specific condition or action are usually identical to those for the rule itself. On the other hand, access permissions of reusable conditions and actions must be expressible without reference to a policy rule. 3. Rule-specific conditions and actions require fewer accesses, because the conditions and actions are "attached" to the rule. In contrast, reusable conditions and actions require more accesses, because each condition or action that is reusable requires a separate access. 4. Rule-specific conditions and actions are designed for use by a single rule. As the number of rules that use the same rule-specific condition increase, subtle problems are created (the most obvious being how to keep the rule-specific conditions and actions updated to reflect the same value). Reusable conditions and actions lend themselves for use by multiple independent rules. 5. Reusable conditions and actions offer an optimization when multiple rules are using the same condition or action. This is because the reusable condition or action only needs be updated once, and by virtue of DN reference, the policy rules will be automatically updated. The preceding paragraph does not contain an exhaustive list of the ways in which reusable and rule-specific conditions should be treated differently. Its purpose is merely to justify making a semantic distinction between rule-specific and reusable, and then reflecting this distinction in the policy repository itself. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 11] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 When the policy repository is realized in an LDAP-accessible directory, the distinction between rule-specific and reusable conditions and actions is realized via placement of auxiliary classes and via DIT containment. Figure 4 illustrates a policy rule Rule1 with one rule- specific condition CA and one rule-specific action AB. +-----+ |Rule1| | | +-----|- -|-----+ | +-----+ | | * * | | * * | | **** **** | | * * | v * * v +--------+ +--------+ | CA+ca | | AB+ab | +--------+ +--------+ +------------------------------+ |LEGEND: | | ***** DIT containment | | + auxiliary attachment | | ----> DN reference | +------------------------------+ Figure 4. Rule-Specific Policy Conditions and Actions Because the condition and action are specific to Rule1, the auxiliary classes ca and ab that represent them are attached, respectively, to the structural classes CA and AB. These structural classes represent not the condition ca and action ab themselves, but rather the associations between Rule1 and ca, and between Rule1 and ab. As Figure 4 illustrates, Rule1 contains DN references to the structural classes CA and AB that appear below it in the DIT. At first glance it might appear that these DN references are unnecessary, since a subtree search below Rule1 would find all of the structural classes representing the associations between Rule1 and its conditions and actions. Relying only on a subtree search, though, runs the risk of missing conditions or actions that should have appeared in the subtree, but for some reason did not, or of finding conditions or actions that were inadvertently placed in the subtree, or that should have been removed from the subtree, but for some reason were not. Implementation experience has suggested that many (but not all) of these risks are eliminated. However, it must be noted that this comes at a price. The use of DN references, as shown in Figure 4 above, thwarts inheritance of access control information as well as existence dependency information. It also is subject to referential integrity considerations. Therefore, it is being included as an option for the designer. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 12] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Figure 5 illustrates a second way of representing rule-specific conditions and actions in an LDAP-accessible directory: attachment of the auxiliary classes directly to the instance representing the policy rule. When all of the conditions and actions are attached to a policy rule in this way, the rule is termed a "simple" policy rule. When conditions and actions are not attached directly to a policy rule, the rule is termed a "complex" policy rule. +-----------+ |Rule1+ca+ab| | | +-----------+ +------------------------------+ |LEGEND: | | + auxiliary attachment | +------------------------------+ Figure 5. A Simple Policy Rule The simple/complex distinction for a policy rule is not all or nothing. A policy rule may have its conditions attached to itself and its actions attached to other entries, or it may have its actions attached to itself and its conditions attached to other entries. However, it SHALL NOT have either its conditions or its actions attached both to itself and to other entries, with one exception: a policy rule may reference its validity periods with the pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, but have its other conditions attached to itself. The tradeoffs between simple and complex policy rules are between the efficiency of simple rules and the flexibility and greater potential for reuse of complex rules. With a simple policy rule, the semantic options are limited: - All conditions are ANDed together. This combination can be represented in two ways in the Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF)/ Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) (please see [1] for definitions of these terms) expressions characteristic of policy conditions: as a DNF expression with a single AND group, or as a CNF expression with multiple single-condition OR groups. The first of these is arbitrarily chosen as the representation for the ANDed conditions in a simple policy rule. - If multiple actions are included, no order can be specified for them. If a policy administrator needs to combine conditions in some other way, or if there is a set of actions that must be ordered, then the only option is to use a complex policy rule. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 13] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Finally, Figure 6 illustrates the same policy rule Rule1, but this time its condition and action are reusable. The association classes CA and AB are still present, and they are still DIT contained under Rule1. But rather than having the auxiliary classes ca and ab attached directly to the association classes CA and AB, each now contains DN references to other entries to which these auxiliary classes are attached. These other entries, CIA and AIB, are DIT contained under RepositoryX, which is an instance of the class pcimRepository. Because they are named under an instance of pcimRepository, ca and ab are clearly identified as reusable. +-----+ +-------------+ |Rule1| | RepositoryX | +-|- -|--+ | | | +-----+ | +-------------+ | * * | * * | * * | * * | *** **** | * * | * * v * * | * +---+ * * | * |AB | +------+ * v * | -|-------->|AIB+ab| * +---+ +---+ +------+ * |CA | +------+ | -|------------------------>|CIA+ca| +---+ +------+ +------------------------------+ |LEGEND: | | ***** DIT containment | | + auxiliary attachment | | ----> DN reference | +------------------------------+ Figure 6. Reusable Policy Conditions and Actions The classes pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass do not themselves represent actual conditions and actions: these are introduced in their subclasses. What pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass do introduce are the semantics of being a policy condition or a policy action. These are the semantics that all the subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass inherit. Among these semantics are those of representing either a rule-specific or a reusable policy condition or policy action. In order to preserve the ability to represent a rule-specific or a reusable condition or action, as well as a simple policy rule, all the subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass MUST also be auxiliary classes. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 14] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 4.5. Location and Retrieval of Policy Objects in the Directory When a Policy Decision Point (PDP) goes to an LDAP directory to retrieve the policy object instances relevant to the Policy Enforcement Points (PEPs) it serves, it is faced with two related problems: - How does it locate and retrieve the directory entries that apply to its PEPs? These entries may include instances of the PCLS classes, instances of domain-specific subclasses of these classes, and instances of other classes modeling such resources as user groups, interfaces, and address ranges. - How does it retrieve the directory entries it needs in an efficient manner, so that retrieval of policy information from the directory does not become a roadblock to scalability? There are two facets to this efficiency: retrieving only the relevant directory entries, and retrieving these entries using as few LDAP calls as possible. The placement of objects in the Directory Information Tree (DIT) involves considerations other than how the policy-related objects will be retrieved by a PDP. Consequently, all that the PCLS can do is to provide a "toolkit" of classes to assist the policy administrator as the DIT is being designed and built. A PDP SHOULD be able to take advantage of any tools that the policy administrator is able to build into the DIT, but it MUST be able to use a less efficient means of retrieval if that is all it has available to it. The basic idea behind the LDAP optimization classes is a simple one: make it possible for a PDP to retrieve all the policy-related objects it needs, and only those objects, using as few LDAP calls as possible. An important assumption underlying this approach is that the policy administrator has sufficient control over the underlying DIT structure to define subtrees for storing policy information. If the policy administrator does not have this level of control over DIT structure, a PDP can still retrieve the policy-related objects it needs individually. But it will require more LDAP access operations to do the retrieval in this way. Figure 7 illustrates how LDAP optimization is accomplished. +-----+ ---------------->| A | DN reference to | | DN references to subtrees +---+ starting object +-----+ +-------------------------->| C | | o--+----+ +---+ +---+ | o--+------------->| B | / \ +-----+ +---+ / \ / \ / \ / ... \ / \ / \ / \ / ... \ Figure 7. Using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to Locate Policies Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 15] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The PDP is configured initially with a DN reference to some entry in the DIT. The structural class of this entry is not important; the PDP is interested only in the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it. This auxiliary class contains a multi-valued attribute with DN references to objects that anchor subtrees containing policy-related objects of interest to the PDP. Since pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass is an auxiliary class, it can be attached to an entry that the PDP would need to access anyway - perhaps an entry containing initial configuration settings for the PDP, or for a PEP that uses the PDP. Once it has retrieved the DN references, the PDP will direct to each of the objects identified by them an LDAP request that all entries in its subtree be evaluated against the selection criteria specified in the request. The LDAP-enabled directory then returns all entries in that subtree that satisfy the specified criteria. The selection criteria always specify that object class="pcimPolicy". Since all classes representing policy rules, policy conditions, and policy actions, both in the PCLS and in any domain-specific schema derived from it, are subclasses of the abstract class policy, this criterion evaluates to TRUE for all instances of these classes. To accommodate special cases where a PDP needs to retrieve objects that are not inherently policy-related (for example, an IP address range object referenced by a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass representing the DHCP action "assign from this address range"), the auxiliary class pcimElementAuxClass can be used to "tag" an entry, so that it will be found by the selection criterion "object class=pcimPolicy". The approach described in the preceding paragraph will not work for certain directory implementations, because these implementations do not support matching of auxiliary classes in the objectClass attribute. For environments where these implementations are expected to be present, the "tagging" of entries as relevant to policy can be accomplished by inserting the special value "POLICY" into the list of values contained in the pcimKeywords attribute (provided by the pcimPolicy class). If a PDP needs only a subset of the policy-related objects in the indicated subtrees, then it can be configured with additional selection criteria based on the pcimKeywords attribute defined in the pcimPolicy class. This attribute supports both standardized and administrator- defined values. For example, a PDP could be configured to request only those policy-related objects containing the keywords "DHCP" and "Eastern US". To optimize what is expected to be a typical case, the initial request from the client includes not only the object to which its "seed" DN references, but also the subtree contained under this object. The filter for searching this subtree is whatever the client is going to use later to search the other subtrees: object class="pcimPolicy" or the presence of the keyword "POLICY", and/or presence of a more specific value of pcimKeywords (e.g., "QoS Edge Policy"). Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 16] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Returning to the example in Figure 7, we see that in the best case, a PDP can get all the policy-related objects it needs, and only those objects, with exactly three LDAP requests: one to its starting object A to get the references to B and C, as well as the policy-related objects it needs from the subtree under A, and then one each to B and C to get all the policy-related objects that pass the selection criteria with which it was configured. Once it has retrieved all of these objects, the PDP can then traverse their various DN references locally to understand the semantic relationships among them. The PDP should also be prepared to find a reference to another subtree attached to any of the objects it retrieves, and to follow this reference first, before it follows any of the semantically significant references it has received. This recursion permits a structured approach to identifying related policies. In Figure 7, for example, if the subtree under B includes departmental policies and the one under C includes divisional policies, then there might be a reference from the subtree under C to an object D that roots the subtree of corporate-level policies. A PDP SHOULD understand the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass class, SHOULD be capable of retrieving and processing the entries in the subtrees it references, and SHOULD be capable of doing all of this recursively. The same requirements apply to any other entity needing to retrieve policy information from the directory. Thus, a Policy Management Tool that retrieves policy entries from the directory in order to perform validation and conflict detection SHOULD also understand and be capable of using the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass. All of these requirements are "SHOULD"s rather than "MUST"s because an LDAP client that doesn't implement them can still access and retrieve the directory entries it needs. The process of doing so will just be less efficient than it would have been if the client had implemented these optimizations. When it is serving as a tool for creating policy entries in the directory, a Policy Management Tool SHOULD support creation of pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass entries and their references to object instances. 4.5.1. Aliases and Other DIT-Optimization Techniques Additional flexibility in DIT structure is available to the policy administrator via LDAP aliasing and other techniques. Previous versions of this document have used aliases. However, because aliases are experimental, the use of aliases has been removed from this version of this document. This is because the IETF has yet to produce a specification on how aliases are represented in the directory or how server implementations are to process aliases. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 17] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 5. Class Definitions The semantics for the policy information classes that are to be mapped directly from the information model to an LDAP representation are detailed in [1]. Consequently, all that this document presents for these classes is the specification for how to do the mapping from the information model (which is independent of repository type and access protocol) to a form that can be accessed using LDAP. Remember that some new classes needed to be created (that were not part of [1]) to implement the LDAP mapping. These new LDAP-only classes are fully documented in this document. The formal language for specifying the classes, attributes, and DIT structure and content rules is that defined in reference [3]. If your implementation does not support auxiliary class inheritance, you will have to list auxiliary classes in content rules explicitly or define them in another (implementation-specific) way. The following notes apply to this section in its entirety. Note 1: in the following definitions, the class and attribute definitions follow RFC2252 [3] but they are line-wrapped to enhance human readability. Note 2: where applicable, the possibilities for specifying DIT structure and content rules are noted. However, care must be taken in specifying DIT structure rules. This is because X.501 [4] states that an entry may only exist in the DIT as a subordinate to another superior entry (the superior) if a DIT structure rule exists in the governing subschema which: 1) indicates a name form for the structural object class of the subordinate entry, and 2) either includes the entry's superior structure rule as a possible superior structure rule, or 3) does not specify a superior structure rule. If this last case (3) applies, then the entry is defined to be a subschema administrative point. This is not what is desired. Therefore, care must be taken in defining structure rules, and in particular, they must be locally augmented. Note 3: Wherever possible, both an equality and a substring matching rule are defined for a particular attribute (as well as an ordering match rule to enable sorting of matching results). This provides two different choices for the developer for maximum flexibility. For example, consider the pcimRoles attribute (section 5.3). Suppose that a PEP has reported that it is interested in pcimRules for three roles R1, R2, and R3. If the goal is to minimize queries, then the PDP can supply three substring filters containing the three role names. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 18] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 These queries will return all of the pcimRules that apply to the PEP, but they may also get some that do not apply (e.g., ones that contain one of the roles R1, R2, or R3 and one or more other roles present in a role-combination [1]). Another strategy would be for the PDP to use only equality filters. This approach eliminates the extraneous replies, but it requires the PDP to explicitly build the desired role-combinations itself. It also requires extra queries. Note that this approach is practical only because the role names in a role combination are required to appear in alphabetical order. Note 4: in the following definitions, note that all matching rules are defined in [3] and in [8]. Note 5: some of the following attribute definitions specify additional constraints on various data types (e.g., this integer has values that are valid from 1..10). Text has been added to instruct servers and applications what to do if a value outside of this range is encountered. In all cases, if a constraint is violated, then the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled, meaning that execution of the policy rule SHOULD be stopped. 5.1. The Abstract Class pcimPolicy The abstract class pcimPolicy is a direct mapping of the abstract class Policy from the PCIM. The class value "pcimPolicy" is also used as the mechanism for identifying policy-related instances in the Directory Information Tree. An instance of any class may be "tagged" with this class value by attaching to it the auxiliary class pcimElementAuxClass. Since pcimPolicy is derived from the class dlm1ManagedElement defined in reference [6], this specification has a normative dependency on that element of reference [6]. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.1 NAME 'pcimPolicy' DESC 'An abstract class that is the base class for all classes that describe policy-related instances.' SUP dlm1ManagedElement ABSTRACT MAY ( cn $ dlmCaption $ dlmDescription $ orderedCimKeys $ pcimKeywords ) ) The attribute cn is defined in RFC 2256 [7]. The dlmCaption, dlmDescription, and orderedCimKeys attributes are defined in [6]. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 19] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimKeywords attribute is a multi-valued attribute that contains a set of keywords to assist directory clients in locating the policy objects identified by these keywords. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.3 NAME 'pcimKeywords' DESC 'A set of keywords to assist directory clients in locating the policy objects applicable to them.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) 5.2. The Three Policy Group Classes PCIM [1] defines the PolicyGroup class to serve as a generalized aggregation mechanism, enabling PolicyRules and/or PolicyGroups to be aggregated together. PCLS maps this class into three LDAP classes, called pcimGroup, pcimGroupAuxClass, and pcimGroupInstance. This is done in order to provide maximum flexibility for the DIT designer. The class definitions for the three policy group classes are listed below. These class definitions do not include attributes to realize the PolicyRuleInPolicyGroup and PolicyGroupInPolicyGroup associations from the PCIM. This is because a pcimGroup object refers to instances of pcimGroup and pcimRule via, respectively, the attribute pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet in the pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass object class and the attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet in the pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass object class. To maximize flexibility, the pcimGroup class is defined as abstract. The subclass pcimGroupAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to another entry, while the structural subclass pcimGroupInstance is available to represent a policy group as a standalone entry. The class definitions are as follows. First, the definition of the abstract class pcimGroup: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.2 NAME 'pcimGroup' DESC 'A container for a set of related pcimRules and/or a set of related pcimGroups.' SUP pcimPolicy ABSTRACT MAY ( pcimGroupName ) ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 20] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The one attribute of pcimGroup is pcimGroupName. This attribute is used to define a user-friendly name of this policy group, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.4 NAME 'pcimGroupName' DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy group.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The two subclasses of pcimGroup are defined as follows. The class pcimGroupAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to collect a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.3 NAME 'pcimGroupAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class that collects a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.' SUP pcimGroup AUXILIARY ) The class pcimGroupInstance is a structural class that can be used to collect a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup classes. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.4 NAME 'pcimGroupInstance' DESC 'A structural class that collects a set of related pcimRule and/or pcimGroup entries.' SUP pcimGroup STRUCTURAL ) A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimGroupInstance to have attached to it either references to one or more policy groups (using pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass) or references to one or more policy rules (using pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass). This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyGroup class [1]. Since these semantics do not include specifying any properties of the PolicyGroup class, the content rule would not need to specify any attributes. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 21] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimGroupName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimGroup object class. This structure rule SHOULD include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). The three name forms referenced by the three structure rules would each define one of the three naming attributes. 5.3. The Three Policy Rule Classes The information model defines a PolicyRule class to represent the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with processing policy information. For maximum flexibility, the PCLS maps this class into three LDAP classes. To maximize flexibility, the pcimRule class is defined as abstract. The subclass pcimRuleAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to another entry, while the structural subclass pcimRuleInstance is available to represent a policy rule as a standalone entry. The conditions and actions associated with a policy rule are modeled, respectively, with auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary classes pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass. Each of these auxiliary subclasses is attached to an instance of one of three structural classes. A subclass of pcimConditionAuxClass is attached to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance. Similarly, a subclass of pcimActionAuxClass is attached to an instance of pcimRuleInstance, to an instance of pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance. The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute (defined below) realizes the PolicyRuleValidityPeriod association defined in the PCIM. Since this association has no additional properties besides those that tie the association to its associated objects, this association can be realized by simply using an attribute. Thus, the pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is simply a multi-valued attribute that provides an unordered set of DN references to one or more instances of the pcimTPCAuxClass, indicating when the policy rule is scheduled to be active and when it is scheduled to be inactive. A policy rule is scheduled to be active if it is active according to AT LEAST ONE of the pcimTPCAuxClass instances referenced by this attribute. The PolicyConditionInPolicyRule and PolicyActionInPolicyRule associations, however, do have additional attributes. The association PolicyActionInPolicyRule defines an integer attribute to sequence the actions, and the association PolicyConditionInPolicyRule has both an integer attribute to group the condition terms as well as a Boolean property to specify whether a condition is to be negated. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 22] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 In the PCLS, these additional association attributes are represented as attributes of two classes introduced specifically to model these associations. These classes are the pcimRuleConditionAssociation class and the pcimRuleActionAssociation class, which are defined in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. Thus, they do not appear as attributes of the class pcimRule. Instead, the pcimRuleConditionList and pcimRuleActionList attributes can be used to reference these classes. The class definitions for the three pcimRule classes are as follows. The abstract class pcimRule is a base class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.5 NAME 'pcimRule' DESC 'The base class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.' SUP pcimPolicy ABSTRACT MAY ( pcimRuleName $ pcimRuleEnabled $ pcimRuleConditionListType $ pcimRuleConditionList $ pcimRuleActionList $ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList $ pcimRuleUsage $ pcimRulePriority $ pcimRuleMandatory $ pcimRuleSequencedActions $ pcimRoles ) ) The PCIM [1] defines seven properties for the PolicyRule class. The PCLS defines eleven attributes for the pcimRule class, which is the LDAP equivalent of the PolicyRule class. Of these eleven attributes, seven are mapped directly from corresponding properties in PCIM's PolicyRule class. The remaining four attributes are a class-specific optional naming attribute, and three attributes used to realize the three associations that the pcimRule class participates in. The pcimRuleName attribute is used as a user-friendly name of this policy rule, and can also serve as the class-specific optional naming attribute. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.5 NAME 'pcimRuleName' DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy rule.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 23] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimRuleEnabled attribute is an integer enumeration indicating whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1), administratively disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3). It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.6 NAME 'pcimRuleEnabled' DESC 'An integer indicating whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1), disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3).' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note: All other values for the pcimRuleEnabled attribute are considered errors, and the administrator SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled if an invalid value is found. The pcimRuleConditionListType attribute is used to indicate whether the list of policy conditions associated with this policy rule is in disjunctive normal form (DNF, value=1) or conjunctive normal form (CNF, value=2). It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.7 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionListType' DESC 'A value of 1 means that this policy rule is in disjunctive normal form; a value of 2 means that this policy rule is in conjunctive normal form.' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note: any value other than 1 or 2 for the pcimRuleConditionListType attribute is considered an error. Administrators SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled if an invalid value is found, since it is unclear how to structure the condition list. The pcimRuleConditionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that is used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyCondition association defined in [1]. It contains a set of DNs of pcimRuleConditionAssociation entries representing associations between this policy rule and its conditions. No order is implied. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionList' DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleConditionAssociation entries representing associations between this policy rule and its conditions.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 24] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimRuleActionList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that is used to realize the policyRuleInPolicyAction association defined in [1]. It contains a set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation entries representing associations between this policy rule and its actions. No order is implied. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.9 NAME 'pcimRuleActionList' DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleActionAssociation entries representing associations between this policy rule and its actions.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) The pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute is a multi-valued attribute that is used to realize the pcimRuleValidityPeriod association that is defined in [1]. It contains a set of DNs of pcimRuleValidityAssociation entries that determine when the pcimRule is scheduled to be active or inactive. No order is implied. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.10 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityPeriodList' DESC 'Unordered set of DNs of pcimRuleValidityAssociation entries that determine when the pcimRule is scheduled to be active or inactive.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) The pcimRuleUsage attribute is a free-form sting providing guidelines on how this policy should be used. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.11 NAME 'pcimRuleUsage' DESC 'This attribute is a free-form sting providing guidelines on how this policy should be used.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimRulePriority attribute is a non-negative integer that is used to prioritize this pcimRule relative to other pcimRules. A larger value indicates a higher priority. It is defined as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 25] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.12 NAME 'pcimRulePriority' DESC 'A non-negative integer for prioritizing this pcimRule relative to other pcimRules. A larger value indicates a higher priority.' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note: if the value of the pcimRulePriority field is 0, then it SHOULD be treated as "don't care". On the other hand, if the value is negative, then it SHOULD be treated as an error and Administrators SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled. The pcimRuleMandatory attribute is a Boolean attribute that, if TRUE, indicates that for this policy rule, the evaluation of its conditions and execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is required. If it is FALSE, then the evaluation of its conditions and execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is not required. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.13 NAME 'pcimRuleMandatory' DESC 'If TRUE, indicates that for this policy rule, the evaluation of its conditions and execution of its actions (if the condition is satisfied) is required.' EQUALITY booleanMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimRuleSequencedActions attribute is an integer enumeration that is used to indicate that the ordering of actions defined by the pcimActionOrder attribute is either mandatory(value=1), recommended(value=2), or dontCare(value=3). It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.14 NAME 'pcimRuleSequencedActions' DESC 'An integer enumeration indicating that the ordering of actions defined by the pcimActionOrder attribute is mandatory(1), recommended(2), or dontCare(3).' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note: if the value of pcimRulesSequencedActions field is not one of these three values, then Administrators SHOULD treat this rule as being disabled. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 26] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimRoles attribute represents the policyRoles property of [1]. Each value of this attribute represents a role-combination, which is a string of the form: [&&]* where the individual role names appear in alphabetical order according to the collating sequence for UCS-2. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.15 NAME 'pcimRoles' DESC 'Each value of this attribute represents a role- combination.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 ) Note: if the value of the pcimRoles attribute does not conform to the format "[&&]*" (see Section 6.3.7 of [1]), then this attribute is malformed and its policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The two subclasses of the pcimRule class are defined as follows. First, the pcimRuleAuxClass is an auxiliary class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule. Its class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.6 NAME 'pcimRuleAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.' SUP pcimRule AUXILIARY ) The pcimRuleInstance is a structural class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule. Its class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.7 NAME 'pcimRuleInstance' DESC 'A structural class for representing the "If Condition then Action" semantics associated with a policy rule.' SUP pcimRule STRUCTURAL ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 27] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimRuleInstance to have attached to it either references to one or more policy conditions (using pcimConditionAuxClass) or references to one or more policy actions (using pcimActionAuxClass). This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyRule class [1]. Since these semantics do not include specifying any properties of the PolicyRule class, the content rule would not need to specify any attributes. Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written, each of which would refer to a specific name form that identified one of its three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimRuleName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys). This structure rule SHOULD include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). The three name forms referenced by the three structure rules would each define one of the three naming attributes. 5.4. The Class pcimRuleConditionAssociation This class contains attributes to represent the properties of the PCIM's PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association. Instances of this class are related to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment. The policy conditions themselves are represented by auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass. These auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of pcimRuleConditionAssociation for rule- specific policy conditions. For a reusable policy condition, the policyCondition auxiliary subclass is attached to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance (which is presumably associated with a pcimRepository by DIT containment), and the policyConditionDN attribute (of this class) is used to reference the reusable policyCondition instance. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.8 NAME 'pcimRuleConditionAssociation' DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the relationship between a policy rule and one of its policy conditions.' SUP pcimPolicy MUST ( pcimConditionGroupNumber $ pcimConditionNegated ) MAY ( pcimConditionName $ pcimConditionDN ) ) The attributes of this class are defined as follows. The pcimConditionGroupNumber attribute is a non-negative integer. It is used to identify the group to which the condition referenced by this association is assigned. This attribute is defined as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 28] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.16 NAME 'pcimConditionGroupNumber' DESC 'The number of the group to which a policy condition belongs. This is used to form the DNF or CNF expression associated with a policy rule.' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note that this number is non-negative. A negative value for this attribute is invalid, and any policy rule that refers to an invalid entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The pcimConditionNegated attribute is a Boolean attribute that indicates whether this policy condition is to be negated or not. If it is TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition IS (IS NOT) negated in the DNF or CNF expression associated with a policy rule. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.17 NAME 'pcimConditionNegated' DESC 'If TRUE (FALSE), it indicates that a policy condition IS (IS NOT) negated in the DNF or CNF expression associated with a policy rule.' EQUALITY booleanMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.7 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimConditionName is a user-friendly name for identifying this policy condition, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.18 NAME 'pcimConditionName' DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy condition.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimConditionDN attribute is a DN that references an instance of a reusable policy condition. This attribute is defined as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 29] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.19 NAME 'pcimConditionDN' DESC 'A DN that references an instance of a reusable policy condition.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 SINGLE-VALUE ) A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimRuleConditionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the auxiliary class pcimConditionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses. This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyConditionInPolicyRule association. Specifically, this would be used to represent a rule-specific policy condition [1]. Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that defined two important semantics. First, each name form would identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimRuleConditionAssociation object class. Second, each name form would require that an instance of the pcimRuleConditionAssociation class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). 5.5. The Class pcimRuleValidityAssociation The policyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation is mapped to the PCLS pcimRuleValidityAssociation class. This class represents the scheduled activation and deactivation of a policy rule by binding the definition of times that the policy is active to the policy rule itself. The "scheduled" times are either identified through an attached auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or are referenced through its pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute. This class is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.9 NAME 'pcimRuleValidityAssociation' DESC 'This defines the scheduled activation or deactivation of a policy rule.' SUP pcimPolicy STRUCTURAL MAY ( pcimValidityConditionName $ pcimTimePeriodConditionDN ) ) The attributes of this class are defined as follows: The pcimValidityConditionName attribute is used to define a user- friendly name of this condition, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. This attribute is defined as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 30] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.20 NAME 'pcimValidityConditionName' DESC 'A user-friendly name for identifying an instance of a pcimRuleValidityAssociation entry.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimTimePeriodConditionDN attribute is a DN that references a reusable time period condition. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.21 NAME 'pcimTimePeriodConditionDN' DESC 'A reference to a reusable policy time period condition.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 SINGLE-VALUE ) A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimRuleValidityAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the auxiliary class pcimTPCAuxClass, or one of its subclasses. This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyRuleValidityPeriod aggregation [1]. Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that defined two important semantics. First, each name form would identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimValidityConditionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimRuleValidityAssociation object class. Second, each name form would require that an instance of the pcimRuleValidityAssociation class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). 5.6. The Class pcimRuleActionAssociation This class contains an attribute to represent the one property of the PCIM PolicyActionInPolicyRule association, ActionOrder. This property is used to specify an order for executing the actions associated with a policy rule. Instances of this class are related to an instance of pcimRule via DIT containment. The actions themselves are represented by auxiliary subclasses of the auxiliary class pcimActionAuxClass. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 31] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 These auxiliary classes are attached directly to instances of pcimRuleActionAssociation for rule-specific policy actions. For a reusable policy action, the pcimAction auxiliary subclass is attached to an instance of the class pcimPolicyInstance (which is presumably associated with a pcimRepository by DIT containment), and the pcimActionDN attribute (of this class) is used to reference the reusable pcimCondition instance. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.10 NAME 'pcimRuleActionAssociation' DESC 'This class contains attributes characterizing the relationship between a policy rule and one of its policy actions.' SUP pcimPolicy MUST ( pcimActionOrder ) MAY ( pcimActionName $ pcimActionDN ) ) The pcimActionName attribute is used to define a user-friendly name of this action, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.22 NAME 'pcimActionName' DESC 'A user-friendly name for a policy action.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The pcimActionOrder attribute is an unsigned integer that is used to indicate the relative position of an action in a sequence of actions that are associated with a given policy rule. When this number is positive, it indicates a place in the sequence of actions to be performed, with smaller values indicating earlier positions in the sequence. If the value is zero, then this indicates that the order is irrelevant. Note that if two or more actions have the same non-zero value, they may be performed in any order as long as they are each performed in the correct place in the overall sequence of actions. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.23 NAME 'pcimActionOrder' DESC 'An integer indicating the relative order of an action in the context of a policy rule.' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 32] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Note: if the value of the pcimActionOrder field is negative, then it SHOULD be treated as an error and any policy rule that refers to such an entry SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The pcimActionDN attribute is a DN that references a reusable policy action. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.24 NAME 'pcimActionDN' DESC 'A DN that references a reusable policy action.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 SINGLE-VALUE ) A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimRuleActionAssociation to have attached to it an instance of the auxiliary class pcimActionAuxClass, or one of its subclasses. This would be used to formalize the semantics of the PolicyActionInPolicyRule association. Specifically, this would be used to represent a rule- specific policy action [1]. Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that defined two important semantics. First, each name form would identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimActionName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for the pcimRuleActionAssociation object class. Second, each name form would require that an instance of the pcimRuleActionAssociation class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRule class. This structure rule should also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). 5.7. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionAuxClass The purpose of a policy condition is to determine whether or not the set of actions (contained in the pcimRule that the condition applies to) should be executed or not. This class defines the basic organizational semantics of a policy condition, as specified in [1]. Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of three other classes in the PCLS. When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of pcimRuleConditionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy condition. When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy condition. Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes of pcimPolicy will already be defined for the entries to which these subclasses attach. Thus, this class is derived directly from "top". Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 33] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.11 NAME 'pcimConditionAuxClass' DESC 'A class representing a condition to be evaluated in conjunction with a policy rule.' SUP top AUXILIARY ) 5.8. The Auxiliary Class pcimTPCAuxClass The PCIM defines a time period class, PolicyTimePeriodCondition, to provide a means of representing the time periods during which a policy rule is valid, i.e., active. It also defines an aggregation, PolicyRuleValidityPeriod, so that time periods can be associated with a PolicyRule. The LDAP mapping also provides two classes, one for the time condition itself, and one for the aggregation. In the PCIM, the time period class is named PolicyTimePeriodCondition. However, the resulting name of the auxiliary class in this mapping (pcimTimePeriodConditionAuxClass) exceeds the length of a name that some directories can store. Therefore, the name has been shortened to pcimTPCAuxClass. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.12 NAME 'pcimTPCAuxClass' DESC 'This provides the capability of enabling or disabling a policy rule according to a predetermined schedule.' SUP pcimConditionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimTPCTime $ pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask $ pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask $ pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask $ pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask $ pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime ) ) The attributes of the pcimTPCAuxClass are defined as follows. The pcimTPCTime attribute represents the time period that a policy rule is enabled for. This attribute is defined as a string in [1] with a special format which defines a time period with a starting date and an ending date separated by a forward slash ("/"), as follows: yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss where the first date and time may be replaced with the string "THISANDPRIOR" or the second date and time may be replaced with the string "THISANDFUTURE". This attribute is defined as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 34] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.25 NAME 'pcimTPCTime' DESC 'The start and end times on which a policy rule is valid.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 SINGLE-VALUE ) The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined format ("yyyymmddThhmmss/yyyymmddThhmmss", where the first and second date strings may be replaced with the strings "THISANDPRIOR" and "THISANDFUTURE"). If the value of this attribute does not conform to this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The next four attributes (pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask, pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask, pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask, and pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask) are all defined as octet strings in [1]. However, the semantics of each of these attributes are contained in bit strings of various fixed lengths. Therefore, the PCLS uses a syntax of Bit String to represent each of them. The definition of these four attributes are as follows. The pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask attribute defines a 12-bit mask identifying the months of the year in which a policy rule is valid. The format is a bit string of length 12, representing the months of the year from January through December. The definition of this attribute is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.26 NAME 'pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask' DESC 'This identifies the valid months of the year for a policy rule using a 12-bit string that represents the months of the year from January through December.' EQUALITY bitStringMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 SINGLE-VALUE ) The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The pcimTPCMonthOfDayMask attribute defines a mask identifying the days of the month on which a policy rule is valid. The format is a bit string of length 62. The first 31 positions represent the days of the month in ascending order, from day 1 to day 31. The next 31 positions represent the days of the month in descending order, from the last day to the day 31 days from the end. The definition of this attribute is as follows: Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 35] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.27 NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask' DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the month for a policy rule using a 62-bit string. The first 31 positions represent the days of the month in ascending order, and the next 31 positions represent the days of the month in descending order.' EQUALITY bitStringMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 SINGLE-VALUE ) The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask attribute defines a mask identifying the days of the week on which a policy rule is valid. The format is a bit string of length 7, representing the days of the week from Sunday through Saturday. The definition of this attribute is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.28 NAME 'pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask' DESC 'This identifies the valid days of the week for a policy rule using a 7-bit string. This represents the days of the week from Sunday through Saturday.' EQUALITY bitStringMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.6 SINGLE-VALUE ) The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. The pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask attribute defines the range of times at which a policy rule is valid. If the second time is earlier than the first, then the interval spans midnight. The format of the string is Thhmmss/Thhmmss. The definition of this attribute is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.29 NAME 'pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask' DESC 'This identifies the valid range of times for a policy using the format Thhmmss/Thhmmss.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.44 SINGLE-VALUE ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 36] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The value of this attribute SHOULD be checked against its defined format. If the value of this attribute does not conform to this syntax, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be treated as being disabled. Finally, the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime attribute is used to choose between local or UTC time representation. This is mapped as a simple integer syntax, with the value of 1 representing local time and the value of 2 representing UTC time. The definition of this attribute is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.30 NAME 'pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime' DESC 'This defines whether the times in this instance represent local (value=1) times or UTC (value=2) times.' EQUALITY integerMatch ORDERING integerOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.27 SINGLE-VALUE ) Note: if the value of the pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime is not 1 or 2, then this SHOULD be considered an error and the policy rule SHOULD be disabled. If the attribute is not present at all, then all times are interpreted as if it were present with the value 2, that is, UTC time. 5.9. The Auxiliary Class pcimConditionVendorAuxClass This class provides a general extension mechanism for representing policy conditions that have not been modeled with specific properties. Instead, its two properties are used to define the content and format of the condition, as explained below. This class is intended for vendor- specific extensions that are not amenable to using pcimCondition; standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this class. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.13 NAME 'pcimConditionVendorAuxClass' DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a policy condition.' SUP pcimConditionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimVendorConstraintData $ pcimVendorConstraintEncoding ) ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 37] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimVendorConstraintData attribute is a multi-valued attribute. It provides a general mechanism for representing policy conditions that have not been modeled as specific attributes. This information is encoded in a set of octet strings. The format of the octet strings is identified by the OID stored in the pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.31 NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintData' DESC 'Mechanism for representing constraints that have not been modeled as specific attributes. Their format is identified by the OID stored in the attribute pcimVendorConstraintEncoding.' EQUALITY octetStringMatch ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 ) The pcimVendorConstraintEncoding attribute is used to identify the format and semantics for the pcimVendorConstraintData attribute. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.32 NAME 'pcimVendorConstraintEncoding' DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the pcimVendorConstraintData for this instance.' EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 SINGLE-VALUE ) 5.10. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionAuxClass The purpose of a policy action is to execute one or more operations that will affect network traffic and/or systems, devices, etc. in order to achieve a desired policy state. This class is used to represent an action to be performed as a result of a policy rule whose condition clause was satisfied. Subclasses of this auxiliary class can be attached to instances of three other classes in the PCLS. When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of pcimRuleActionAssociation, or to an instance of pcimRule, it represents a rule-specific policy action. When a subclass of this class is attached to an instance of pcimPolicyInstance, it represents a reusable policy action. Since all of the classes to which subclasses of this auxiliary class may be attached are derived from the pcimPolicy class, the attributes of the pcimPolicy class will already be defined for the entries to which these subclasses attach. Thus, this class is derived directly from "top". Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 38] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.14 NAME 'pcimActionAuxClass' DESC 'A class representing an action to be performed as a result of a policy rule.' SUP top AUXILIARY ) 5.11. The Auxiliary Class pcimActionVendorAuxClass The purpose of this class is to provide a general extension mechanism for representing policy actions that have not been modeled with specific properties. Instead, its two properties are used to define the content and format of the action, as explained below. As its name suggests, this class is intended for vendor-specific extensions that are not amenable to using the standard pcimAction class. Standardized extensions SHOULD NOT use this class. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.15 NAME 'pcimActionVendorAuxClass' DESC 'A class that defines a registered means to describe a policy action.' SUP pcimActionAuxClass AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimVendorActionData $ pcimVendorActionEncoding ) ) The pcimVendorActionData attribute is a multi-valued attribute. It provides a general mechanism for representing policy actions that have not been modeled as specific attributes. This information is encoded in a set of octet strings. The format of the octet strings is identified by the OID stored in the pcimVendorActionEncoding attribute. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.33 NAME 'pcimVendorActionData' DESC ' Mechanism for representing policy actions that have not been modeled as specific attributes. Their format is identified by the OID stored in the attribute pcimVendorActionEncoding.' EQUALITY octetStringMatch ORDERING octetStringOrderingMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.40 ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 39] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The pcimVendorActionEncoding attribute is used to identify the format and semantics for the pcimVendorActionData attribute. This attribute is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.34 NAME 'pcimVendorActionEncoding' DESC 'An OID identifying the format and semantics for the pcimVendorActionData attribute of this instance.' EQUALITY objectIdentifierMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38 SINGLE-VALUE ) 5.12. The Class pcimPolicyInstance This class is not defined in the PCIM. Its role is to serve as a structural class to which auxiliary classes representing policy information are attached when the information is reusable. For auxiliary classes representing policy conditions and policy actions, there are alternative structural classes that may be used. See Section 4.4 for a complete discussion of reusable policy conditions and actions, and of the role that this class plays in how they are represented. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.16 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstance' DESC 'A structural class to which aux classes containing reusable policy information can be attached.' SUP pcimPolicy MAY ( pcimPolicyInstanceName ) ) The pcimPolicyInstanceName attribute is used to define a user-friendly name of this class, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.35 NAME 'pcimPolicyInstanceName' DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy instance.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) A DIT content rule could be written to enable an instance of pcimPolicyInstance to have attached to it either instances of one or more of the auxiliary object classes pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass. Since these semantics do not include specifying any properties, the content rule would not need to specify any attributes. Note that other content rules could be defined to enable other policy- related auxiliary classes to be attached to pcimPolicyInstance. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 40] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Similarly, three separate DIT structure rules could be written. Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that defined two important semantics. First, each name form would identify one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimPolicyInstanceName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys) for this object class. Second, each name form would require that an instance of the pcimPolicyInstance class have as its superior an instance of the pcimRepository class. This structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). 5.13. The Auxiliary Class pcimElementAuxClass This class introduces no additional attributes, beyond those defined in the class pcimPolicy from which it is derived. Its role is to "tag" an instance of a class defined outside the realm of policy information as represented by PCIM as being nevertheless relevant to a policy specification. This tagging can potentially take place at two levels: - Every instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached becomes an instance of the class pcimPolicy, since pcimElementAuxClass is a subclass of pcimPolicy. Searching for object class="pcimPolicy" will return the instance. (As noted earlier, this approach does NOT work for some directory implementations. To accommodate these implementations, policy-related entries SHOULD be tagged with the pcimKeyword "POLICY".) - With the pcimKeywords attribute that it inherits from pcimPolicy, an instance to which pcimElementAuxClass is attached can be tagged as being relevant to a particular type or category of policy information, using standard keywords, administrator-defined keywords, or both. The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.17 NAME 'pcimElementAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class used to tag instances of classes defined outside the realm of policy as relevant to a particular policy specification.' SUP pcimPolicy AUXILIARY ) 5.14. The Three Policy Repository Classes These classes provide a container for reusable policy information, such as reusable policy conditions and/or reusable policy actions. This document is concerned with mapping just the properties that appear in these classes. Conceptually, this may be thought of as a special location in the DIT where policy information may reside. Since pcimRepository is derived from the class dlm1AdminDomain defined in reference [6], this specification has a normative dependency on that Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 41] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 element of reference [6] (as well as on its entire derivation hierarchy, which also appears in reference [6]). To maximize flexibility, the pcimRepository class is defined as abstract. A subclass pcimRepositoryAuxClass provides for auxiliary attachment to another entry, while a structural subclass pcimRepositoryInstance is available to represent a policy repository as a standalone entry. The definition for the pcimRepository class is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.18 NAME 'pcimRepository' DESC 'A container for reusable policy information.' SUP dlm1AdminDomain ABSTRACT MAY ( pcimRepositoryName ) ) The pcimRepositoryName attribute is used to define a user-friendly name of this class, and may be used as a naming attribute if desired. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.36 NAME 'pcimRepositoryName' DESC 'The user-friendly name of this policy repository.' EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch ORDERING caseIgnoreOrderingMatch SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15 SINGLE-VALUE ) The two subclasses of pcimRepository are defined as follows. First, the pcimRepositoryAuxClass is an auxiliary class that can be used to aggregate reusable policy information. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.19 NAME 'pcimRepositoryAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class that can be used to aggregate reusable policy information.' SUP pcimRepository AUXILIARY ) In cases where structural classes are needed instead of an auxiliary class, the pcimRepositoryInstance class is a structural class that can be used to aggregate reusable policy information. It is defined as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.20 NAME 'pcimRepositoryInstance' DESC 'A structural class that can be used to aggregate reusable policy information.' SUP pcimRepository STRUCTURAL ) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 42] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 Three separate DIT structure rules could be written for this class. Each of these DIT structure rules would refer to a specific name form that enabled an instance of the pcimRepository class to be named under any superior using one of the three possible naming attributes (i.e., pcimRepositoryName, cn, and orderedCIMKeys). This structure rule SHOULD also include a superiorStructureRule (see Note 2 at the beginning of section 5). 5.15. The Auxiliary Class pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that references a set of objects that are at the root of DIT subtrees containing policy-related information. By attaching this attribute to instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that allows a client to locate and retrieve the policy information relevant to it. It is intended that these entries are placed in the DIT such that well- known DNs can be used to reference a well-known structural entry that has the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass attached to it. In effect, this defines a set of entry points. Each of these entry points can contain and/or reference all related policy entries for any well-known policy domains. The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass functions as a tag to identify portions of the DIT that contain policy information. This object does not provide the semantic linkages between individual policy objects, such as those between a policy group and the policy rules that belong to it. Its only role is to enable efficient bulk retrieval of policy-related objects, as described in Section 4.5. Once the objects have been retrieved, a directory client can determine the semantic linkages by following references contained in multi-valued attributes, such as pcimRulesAuxContainedSet. Since policy-related objects will often be included in the DIT subtree beneath an object to which this auxiliary class is attached, a client SHOULD request the policy-related objects from the subtree under the object with these references at the same time that it requests the references themselves. Since clients are expected to behave in this way, the policy administrator SHOULD make sure that this subtree does not contain so many objects unrelated to policy that an initial search done in this way results in a performance problem. The pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass SHOULD NOT be attached to the partition root for a large directory partition containing a relatively few number of policy-related objects along with a large number of objects unrelated to policy (again, "policy" here refers to the PCIM, not the X.501, definition and use of "policy"). A better approach would be to introduce a container object immediately below the partition root, attach pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass to this container object, and then place all of the policy-related objects in that subtree. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 43] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.21 NAME 'pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class providing DN references to roots of DIT subtrees containing policy-related objects.' SUP top AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet ) ) The attribute pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of DN references to instances of one or more objects under which policy- related information is present. The objects referenced may or may not themselves contain policy-related information. The attribute definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.37 NAME 'pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet' DESC 'DNs of objects that serve as roots for DIT subtrees containing policy-related objects.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) Note that the cn attribute does NOT need to be defined for this class. This is because an auxiliary class is used as a means to collect common attributes and treat them as properties of an object. A good analogy is a #include file, except that since an auxiliary class is a class, all the benefits of a class (e.g., inheritance) can be applied to an auxiliary class. 5.16. The Auxiliary Class pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that references a set of pcimGroups. By attaching this attribute to instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimGroups relevant to it. As is the case with pcimRules, a policy administrator might have several different references to a pcimGroup in the overall directory structure. The pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that makes it possible for the policy administrator to define all these different references. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 44] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.22 NAME 'pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimGroups to an appropriate container object.' SUP top AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet ) ) The attribute pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of references to instances of one or more pcimGroups associated with the instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been appended. The attribute definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.38 NAME 'pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet' DESC 'DNs of pcimGroups associated in some way with the instance to which this attribute has been appended.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) Note that the cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class for the same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass in section 5.15. 5.17. The Auxiliary Class pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass This auxiliary class provides a single, multi-valued attribute that references a set of pcimRules. By attaching this attribute to instances of various other classes, a policy administrator has a flexible way of providing an entry point into the directory that allows a client to locate and retrieve the pcimRules relevant to it. A policy administrator might have several different references to a pcimRule in the overall directory structure. For example, there might be references to all pcimRules for traffic originating in a particular subnet from a directory entry that represents that subnet. At the same time, there might be references to all pcimRules related to a particular DiffServ setting from an instance of a pcimGroup explicitly introduced as a container for DiffServ-related pcimRules. The pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass is the mechanism that makes it possible for the policy administrator to define all these separate references. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 45] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 The class definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.23 NAME 'pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass' DESC 'An auxiliary class used to bind pcimRules to an appropriate container object.' SUP top AUXILIARY MAY ( pcimRulesAuxContainedSet ) ) The attribute pcimRulesAuxContainedSet provides an unordered set of references to one or more instances of pcimRules associated with the instance of a structural class to which this attribute has been appended. The attribute definition is as follows: ( IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.39 NAME 'pcimRulesAuxContainedSet' DESC 'DNs of pcimRules associated in some way with the instance to which this attribute has been appended.' EQUALITY distinguishedNameMatch SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12 ) The cn attribute does NOT have to be defined for this class for the same reasons as those given for the pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass in section 5.15. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 46] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 6. Extending the Classes Defined in This Document The following subsections provide general guidance on how to create a domain-specific schema derived from this document, discuss how the vendor classes in the PCLS should be used, and explain how policyTimePeriodConditions are related to other policy conditions. 6.1. Subclassing pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass In Section 4.4, there is a discussion of how, by representing policy conditions and policy actions as auxiliary classes in a schema, the flexibility is retained to instantiate a particular condition or action as either rule-specific or reusable. This flexibility is lost if a condition or action class is defined as structural rather than auxiliary. For standardized schemata, this document specifies that domain-specific information MUST be expressed in auxiliary subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and pcimActionAuxClass. It is RECOMMENDED that non-standardized schemata follow this practice as well. 6.2. Using the Vendor Policy Attributes As discussed Section 5.9, the attributes pcimVendorConstraintData and pcimVendorConstraintEncoding are included in the pcimConditionVendorAuxClass to provide a mechanism for representing vendor-specific policy conditions that are not amenable to being represented with the pcimCondition class (or its subclasses). The attributes pcimVendorActionData and pcimVendorActionEncoding in the pcimActionVendorAuxClass class play the same role with respect to actions. This enables interoperability between different vendors who could not otherwise interoperate. For example, imagine a network composed of access devices from vendor A, edge and core devices from vendor B, and a policy server from vendor C. It is desirable for this policy server to be able to configure and manage all of the devices from vendors A and B. Unfortunately, these devices will in general have little in common (e.g., different mechanisms, different ways for controlling those mechanisms, different operating systems, different commands, and so forth). The extension conditions provide a way for vendor-specific commands to be encoded as octet strings, so that a single policy server can commonly manage devices from different vendors. 6.3. Using Time Validity Periods Time validity periods are defined as an auxiliary subclass of pcimConditionAuxClass, called pcimTPCAuxClass. This is to allow their inclusion in the AND/OR condition definitions for a pcimRule. Care should be taken not to subclass pcimTPCAuxClass to add domain-specific condition properties. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 47] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 For example, it would be incorrect to add IPsec- or QoS-specific condition properties to the pcimTPCAuxClass class, just because IPsec or QoS includes time in its condition definition. The correct subclassing would be to create IPsec or QoS-specific subclasses of pcimConditionAuxClass and then combine instances of these domain- specific condition classes with the appropriate validity period criteria. This is accomplished using the AND/OR association capabilities for policy conditions in pcimRules. 7. Security Considerations The PCLS, presented in this document, provides a mapping of the object- oriented model for describing policy information (PCIM) into a data model that forms the basic framework for describing the structure of policy data, in the case where the policy repository takes the form of an LDAP-accessible directory. PCLS is not intended to represent any particular system design or implementation. PCLS is not directly useable in a real world system, without the discipline-specific mappings that are works in progress in the Policy Framework Working Group of the IETF. These other derivative documents, which use PCIM and its discipline- specific extensions as a base, will need to convey more specific security considerations (refer to RFC3060 for more information.) The reason that PCLS, as defined here, is not representative of any real-world system, is that its object classes were designed to be independent of any specific discipline, or policy domain. For example, DiffServ and IPsec represent two different policy domains. Each document that extends PCIM to one of these domains will derive subclasses from the classes and relationships defined in PCIM, in order to represent extensions of a generic model to cover specific technical domains. PCIM-derived documents will thus subclass the PCIM classes into classes specific to each technical policy domain (QOS, IPsec, etc.), which will, in turn, be mapped, to directory-specific schemata consistent with the PCLS documented here. Even though discipline-specific security requirements are not appropriate for PCLS, specific security requirements MUST be defined for each operational real-world application of PCIM. Just as there will be a wide range of operational, real-world systems using PCIM, there will also be a wide range of security requirements for these systems. Some operational, real-world systems that are deployed using PCLS may have extensive security requirements that impact nearly all object classes utilized by such a system, while other systems' security requirements might have very little impact. The derivative documents, discussed above, will create the context for applying operational, real-world, system-level security requirements against the various models that derive from PCIM, consistent with PCLS. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 48] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 In some real-world scenarios, the values associated with certain properties, within certain instantiated object classes, may represent information associated with scarce, and/or costly (and therefore valuable) resources. It may be the case that these values must not be disclosed to, or manipulated by, unauthorized parties. Since this document forms the basis for the representation of a policy data model in a specific format (an LDAP-accessible directory), it is herein appropriate to reference the data model-specific tools and mechanisms that are available for achieving the authentication and authorization implicit in a requirement that restricts read and/or read- write access to these values stored in a directory. General LDAP security considerations apply, as documented in RFC3377 [2]. LDAP-specific authentication and authorization tools and mechanisms are found in the following standards track documents, which are appropriate for application to the management of security applied to policy data models stored in an LDAP-accessible directory: - RFC 2829 (Authentication Methods for LDAP) - RFC 2830 (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security) Any identified security requirements that are not dealt with in the appropriate discipline-specific information model documents, or in this document, MUST be dealt with in the derivative data model documents which are specific to each discipline. 8. IANA Considerations Reference RFC 3383 "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)"[15]. 8.1. Object Identifiers It is requested that IANA register an LDAP Object Identifer for use in this technical specification according to the following template: Subject: Request for LDAP OID Registration Person & email address to contact for further information: Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com) Specification: RFC XXXX Author/Change Controller: IESG Comments: The assigned OID will be used as a base for identifying a number of schema elements defined in this document. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 49] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 8.2. Object Identifier Descriptors It is requested that IANA register the LDAP Descriptors used in this technical specification as detailed in the following template: Subject: Request for LDAP Descriptor Registration Update Descriptor (short name): see comment Object Identifier: see comment Person & email address to contact for further information: Bob Moore (remoore@us.ibm.com) Usage: see comment Specification: RFC XXXX Author/Change Controller: IESG Comments: The following descriptors should be added: NAME Type OID -------------- ---- ------------ pcimPolicy O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.1 pcimGroup O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.2 pcimGroupAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.3 pcimGroupInstance O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.4 pcimRule O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.5 pcimRuleAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.6 pcimRuleInstance O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.7 pcimRuleConditionAssociation O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.8 pcimRuleValidityAssociation O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.9 pcimRuleActionAssociation O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.10 pcimConditionAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.11 pcimTPCAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.12 pcimConditionVendorAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.13 pcimActionAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.14 pcimActionVendorAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.15 pcimPolicyInstance O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.16 pcimElementAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.17 pcimRepository O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.18 pcimRepositoryAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.19 pcimRepositoryInstance O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.20 pcimSubtreesPtrAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.21 pcimGroupContainmentAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.22 pcimRuleContainmentAuxClass O IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.1.23 pcimKeywords A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.3 pcimGroupName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.4 pcimRuleName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.5 pcimRuleEnabled A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.6 pcimRuleConditionListType A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.7 pcimRuleConditionList A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.8 pcimRuleActionList A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.9 (descriptors continued on next page) Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 50] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 (descriptors continued from previous page) NAME Type OID -------------- ---- ------------ pcimRuleValidityPeriodList A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.10 pcimRuleUsage A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.11 pcimRulePriority A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.12 pcimRuleMandatory A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.13 pcimRuleSequencedActions A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.14 pcimRoles A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.15 pcimConditionGroupNumber A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.16 pcimConditionNegated A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.17 pcimConditionName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.18 pcimConditionDN A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.19 pcimValidityConditionName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.20 pcimTimePeriodConditionDN A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.21 pcimActionName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.22 pcimActionOrder A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.23 pcimActionDN A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.24 pcimTPCTime A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.25 pcimTPCMonthOfYearMask A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.26 pcimTPCDayOfMonthMask A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.27 pcimTPCDayOfWeekMask A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.28 pcimTPCTimeOfDayMask A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.29 pcimTPCLocalOrUtcTime A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.30 pcimVendorConstraintData A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.31 pcimVendorConstraintEncoding A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.32 pcimVendorActionData A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.33 pcimVendorActionEncoding A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.34 pcimPolicyInstanceName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.35 pcimRepositoryName A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.36 pcimSubtreesAuxContainedSet A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.37 pcimGroupsAuxContainedSet A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.38 pcimRulesAuxContainedSet A IANA-ASSIGNED-OID.2.39 where Type A is Attribute, Type O is ObjectClass 9. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 51] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 10. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Kurt Zeilenga, Roland Hedburg, and Steven Legg for doing a review of this document and making many helpful suggestions and corrections. Several of the policy classes in this model first appeared in early IETF drafts on IPsec policy and QoS policy. The authors of these drafts were Partha Bhattacharya, Rob Adams, William Dixon, Roy Pereira, Raju Rajan, Jean-Christophe Martin, Sanjay Kamat, Michael See, Rajiv Chaudhury, Dinesh Verma, George Powers, and Raj Yavatkar. This document is closely aligned with the work being done in the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) Policy and Networks working groups. We would especially like to thank Lee Rafalow, Glenn Waters, David Black, Michael Richardson, Mark Stevens, David Jones, Hugh Mahon, Yoram Snir, and Yoram Ramberg for their helpful comments. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 52] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 11. Normative References [1] Moore, B., and E. Ellesson, J. Strassner, A. Westerinen "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001. [2] Hodges, J., and Morgan R., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical Specification", RFC3377, September 2002. [3] Wahl, M., and A. Coulbeck, T. Howes, S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, December 1997. [4] The Directory: Models. ITU-T Recommendation X.501, 2001. [5] Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "Common Information Model (CIM) Specification", Version 2.2, June 14, 1999. This document is available on the following DMTF web page: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/CIM/DSP0004.pdf [6] Distributed Management Task Force, Inc., "DMTF LDAP Schema for the CIM v2.5 Core Information Model", April 15, 2002. This document is available on the following DMTF web page: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/documents/DEN/DSP0123.pdf [7] Wahl, M., "A Summary of the X.500(96) User Schema for use with LDAPv3", RFC 2256, December 1997. [8] The Directory: Selected Attribute Types. ITU-T Recommendation X.520, 2001. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 53] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 12. Informative References [9] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [10] Hovey, R., and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996. [11] Strassner, J., policy architecture BOF presentation, 42nd IETF Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998. Minutes of this BOF are available at the following location: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/index.html. [12] Yavatkar, R., and R. Guerin, D. Pendarakis, "A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. [13] M. Wahl, H. Alvestrand, J. Hodges, R. Morgan, "Authentication Methods for LDAP", RFC 2829, May 2000 [14] J. Hodges, R. Morgan, M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security", RFC 2830, May 2000. [15] Zeilenga, K., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)", BCP 64, RFC 3383, September 2002. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 54] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 13. Authors' Addresses John Strassner Intelliden Corporation 90 South Cascade Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone: +1.719.785.0648 Fax: +1.719.785.0644 E-mail: john.strassner@intelliden.com Bob Moore IBM Corporation P. O. Box 12195, BRQA/B501/E116 3039 Cornwallis Rd. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 Phone: +1 919-254-4436 Fax: +1 919-254-6243 E-mail: remoore@us.ibm.com Ryan Moats Lemur Networks, Inc. 15621 Drexel Circle Omaha, NE 68135 Phone: +1-402-894-9456 E-mail: rmoats@lemurnetworks.net Ed Ellesson 3026 Carriage Trail Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: +1 919-644-3977 E-mail: ellesson@mindspring.com Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 55] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 14. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 56] Internet Draft draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt October 2002 15. Appendix: Constructing the Value of orderedCIMKeys This appendix is non-normative, and is included in this document as a guide to implementers that wish to exchange information between CIM schemata and LDAP schemata. Within a CIM name space, the naming is basically flat; all instances are identified by the values of their key properties, and each combination of key values must be unique. A limited form of hierarchical naming is available in CIM, however, by using weak associations: since a weak association involves propagation of key properties and their values from the superior object to the subordinate one, the subordinate object can be thought of as being named "under" the superior object. Once they have been propagated, however, propagated key properties and their values function in exactly the same way that native key properties and their values do in identifying a CIM instance. The CIM mapping document [6] introduces a special attribute, orderedCIMKeys, to help map from the CIM_ManagedElement class to the LDAP class dlm1ManagedElement. This attribute SHOULD only be used in an environment where it is necessary to map between an LDAP-accessible directory and a CIM repository. For an LDAP environment, other LDAP naming attributes are defined (i.e., cn and a class-specific naming attribute) that SHOULD be used instead. The role of orderedCIMKeys is to represent the information necessary to correlate an entry in an LDAP-accessible directory with an instance in a CIM name space. Depending on how naming of CIM-related entries is handled in an LDAP directory, the value of orderedCIMKeys represents one of two things: - If the DIT hierarchy does not mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of the CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys represents all the keys of the CIM instance, both native and propagated. - If the DIT hierarchy does mirror the "weakness hierarchy" of the CIM name space, then orderedCIMKeys may represent either all the keys of the instance, or only the native keys. Regardless of which of these alternatives is taken, the syntax of orderedCIMKeys is the same - a DirectoryString of the form .=[,=]* where the = elements are ordered by the names of the key properties, according to the collating sequence for US ASCII. The only spaces allowed in the DirectoryString are those that fall within a element. As with alphabetizing the key properties, the goal of suppressing the spaces is once again to make the results of string operations predictable. The values of the elements are derived from the various CIM syntaxes according to a grammar specified in [5]. Strassner, et al. Expires: April 2003 [Page 57] --------------030309010204010404020705-- _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 22 04:36:12 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00316 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:36:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3M8ldg19392 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:47:39 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3M8ha819244; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:43:40 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3M8gs819213 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:42:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00126 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197tDJ-0007PK-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:33:17 -0400 Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161] helo=hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197tDJ-0007P2-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:33:17 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by hoemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h3M8X8p02692 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 04:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R19WW47>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:33:07 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155016A3460@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" , policy@ietf.org Cc: "Ned Freed (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 .txt] Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:32:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , As I stated a week (or two) ago, I am working this in the IESG. Kurt, your document has NOT yet been approved. WE're working on it. If you go to the ballow page (which you can do from the view details) then you will see that there is one D (Defer), namely Ned Freed. He asked for extra time to review... and he will do so before May 1st. At that time (I hope) the doc can pass, unless NED finds something serious. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org] > Sent: maandag 21 april 2003 22:09 > To: policy@ietf.org > Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: > draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] > > > Larry, > > Like any other RFC-to-be, draft-ietf-policy-core-schema > has to wait on its normative references. > > draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is still an active "work > in progress" ("expire" dates can be misleading as "in process" > I-Ds don't expire). See the I-D data tracker for current > status. > > draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema appears (from the available > I-D data tracker details) to have been approved by the IESG. > So this thread seems moot. > > > This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft. > > No. > > PCLS defines elements of LDAP schema dependent on LDAP > matching rules which, at present, are not specified > in any standard track document. While X.520(93) defined > X.500 corresponding matching rules, it does not define > any LDAP matching rules. As X.500 matching rules have > to be adapted for use in LDAP (as demonstrated in RFC > 2252), referencing X.520 is not sufficient. > > The PCLS's normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap- > user-schema is correct and proper. No action is needed > by the Policy WG. > > Kurt > > _______________________________________________ > Policy mailing list > Policy@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 22 10:34:59 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11824 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:34:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3MEkZx10588 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:46:35 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MEgZ810387; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:42:37 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MEcf809989 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:38:41 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11507 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197ylV-00026c-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:28:57 -0400 Received: from auemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.223.163] helo=auemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197ylU-00026Z-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:28:56 -0400 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h3MESmC20309 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:28:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2R19XAHF>; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:28:48 +0200 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155016A3608@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: ned.freed@mrochek.com, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" , policy@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 .txt] Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:28:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thanks fro your elaboration Ned. Now that you repeat it, I do indeed recall that you expect to raise a discuss. The draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is referenced in a normative manner from the policy schema document, that is why it came up on the policy WG list, and that is why I hope we can find a solution soon. (Policy doc has been in RFC-Editor queue fro many months already). Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: ned.freed@mrochek.com [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com] > Sent: dinsdag 22 april 2003 15:56 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Kurt D. Zeilenga; policy@ietf.org; Ned Freed (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: > draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 .txt] > > > > As I stated a week (or two) ago, I am working this in the IESG. > > > Kurt, your document has NOT yet been approved. WE're working on it. > > If you go to the ballow page (which you can do from the > view details) > > then you will see that there is one D (Defer), namely Ned Freed. > > He asked for extra time to review... and he will do so before > > May 1st. At that time (I hope) the doc can pass, unless NED finds > > something serious. > > There seems to be some confusion here. > > First, the document I have a defer on is > draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, > not draft-ietf-policy-core-schema. The latter is in the RFC Editor > queue. > > Second, I thought I made it clear on the call that there was > little chance my > defer would turn into anything other than a discuss. > > The problem I have with this document is that it reuses a > number of attributes > from a variety of other specifications that are themselves > not well specified. > And these specification issues are causing operational > problems. I don't think > it is appropriate to let the specification proceed without > addressing these > issues. I'm trying to find and fix as many of these as I can > and I'm trying to > tap additional experienced people within Sun to review this as well. > > Ned > _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 22 15:11:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21893 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:11:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3MJNPL32598 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:23:25 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MJJU832407; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:19:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MJHp832356 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:17:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21199 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:05:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19837a-0004Hx-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:08:02 -0400 Received: from mx-relay21.treas.gov ([199.196.132.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19837Z-0004Hu-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:08:01 -0400 Received: from TIAS24.net.treas.gov (tias24.treas.gov [199.196.132.24]) by mx-relay21.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h3MIswA4021317; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from no.name.available by TIAS24.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for [199.196.132.5]) with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 19:08:20 UT Received: from irsbd3.net.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-22.net.treas.gov (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3MJ8DWR014682; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:08:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: mailhub-22.net.treas.gov: iscan owned process doing -bs Received: from no.name.available by irsbd3.net.treas.gov via smtpd (for mailhub.net.treas.gov [10.13.252.12]) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:08:14 -0400 Received: from parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov (IDENT:lsbart35@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by big-al.indy.cr.irs.gov (8.11.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h3MJ8Db14495; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:08:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3EA5931C.1000805@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:08:12 -0500 From: "Larry S. Bartz" Organization: Internal Revenue Service User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" CC: policy@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030421120455.02596b18@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030421120455.02596b18@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-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote, On 04/21/03 15:08: > Larry, > > Like any other RFC-to-be, draft-ietf-policy-core-schema > has to wait on its normative references. > > draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is still an active "work > in progress" ("expire" dates can be misleading as "in process" > I-Ds don't expire). See the I-D data tracker for current > status. Thanks for that distinction, Kurt. I was working from the apparently mistaken assumption that expiration was the end of the line for an I-D unless a subsequent version kept it fresh and active. Thanks also for pointing me to the I-D data tracker. I was unaware of the wealth of information there. > > draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema appears (from the available > I-D data tracker details) to have been approved by the IESG. > So this thread seems moot. Kurt, I hope it *is* moot, and that the attainment of RFC status by your draft really does move the PCLS rapidly toward publication as an RFC. I guess I'm an impatient sort. When we trace the PCLS back to its DEN (Directory Enabled Networks) roots, it's fair to say that it has been a work in progress for more than five years. That might not seem a long time to a standards author. But for rest of us... > > >>This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft. > > > No. > > PCLS defines elements of LDAP schema dependent on LDAP > matching rules which, at present, are not specified > in any standard track document. While X.520(93) defined > X.500 corresponding matching rules, it does not define > any LDAP matching rules. Agreed. > As X.500 matching rules have > to be adapted for use in LDAP (as demonstrated in RFC > 2252), referencing X.520 is not sufficient. On the surface, "adapted for use in LDAP?" looks like a hard question. PCLS uses three matching rules which haven't been explicitly defined as standard LDAP matching rules. They are booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch. What does "adapted for use in LDAP" mean for those matching rules? According to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, the "adaptation" is little more than a restatement of the X.520 definitions. That's fine. It's enough. Explicitly defining them in the LDAP context is important, to be sure. I expect that there are other matching rules which require some considerable profiling to adapt their semantics and behavior from X.520 to LDAP. But these three obviously aren't among them. Some LDAP-conformant server implementations already support booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch, in conformance with their X.520 definitions. Does it matter that these X.520-defined matching rules are not yet defined in an LDAP-specific RFC? The server doesn't care. The schema doesn't care. The applications which use the server and the schema don't care, either. Rough consensus and working code, right? I realize that Kurt, the the ldapbis WG, and the IETF are working very hard to make LDAP more concise, precise, and complete. This is Good Work. But in the case of the PCLS and these three matching rules, if the subject of the normative reference at issue here isn't immediately forthcoming, there really isn't a good reason for PCLS to wait any longer. > > The PCLS's normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap- > user-schema is correct and proper. No action is needed > by the Policy WG. I agree with "correct and proper", but I'm not convinced of "necessary". If draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is really on the cusp of RFC-hood, then the PCLS should simply follow its present course. This is certainly the path of least resistance. But if draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema slips off the cusp, PCLS should defer to pragmatism, drop the reference, and move on. -- -- #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| # Larry Bartz | | # lbartz@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 mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue Apr 22 18:05:33 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA28744 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3MMHGN15752 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:17:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MMDQ815451; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:13:26 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3MEXF808920 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:33:15 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11388 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:21:09 -0400 (EDT) From: ned.freed@mrochek.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197ygF-00024T-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:23:31 -0400 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com ([209.55.107.55]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 197ygE-00024Q-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:23:31 -0400 Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01KV059WFPHS002O3W@mauve.mrochek.com> for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 06:56:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 .txt] In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:32:55 +0200" <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155016A3460@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" , policy@ietf.org, "Ned Freed (E-mail)" Message-id: <01KV0Q4TWRQ2002O3W@mauve.mrochek.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155016A3460@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > As I stated a week (or two) ago, I am working this in the IESG. > Kurt, your document has NOT yet been approved. WE're working on it. > If you go to the ballow page (which you can do from the view details) > then you will see that there is one D (Defer), namely Ned Freed. > He asked for extra time to review... and he will do so before > May 1st. At that time (I hope) the doc can pass, unless NED finds > something serious. There seems to be some confusion here. First, the document I have a defer on is draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, not draft-ietf-policy-core-schema. The latter is in the RFC Editor queue. Second, I thought I made it clear on the call that there was little chance my defer would turn into anything other than a discuss. The problem I have with this document is that it reuses a number of attributes from a variety of other specifications that are themselves not well specified. And these specification issues are causing operational problems. I don't think it is appropriate to let the specification proceed without addressing these issues. I'm trying to find and fix as many of these as I can and I'm trying to tap additional experienced people within Sun to review this as well. Ned _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 23 12:26:54 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25268 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3NGcxd08102 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:38:59 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NGZE807119; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:35:14 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3N10D825575 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:00:13 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02803 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:47:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1988Sl-0006fC-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:50:15 -0400 Received: from router.boolean.net ([198.144.206.49] helo=pretender.boolean.net ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1988Sl-0006f9-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:50:15 -0400 Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (kurt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3N0ocDV038103 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:50:38 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030422174410.01f9b058@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:48:22 -0700 To: policy@ietf.org From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: RE: [Policy] draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In regards to the use of OBSOLETE keyword, please note that this is NOT a mechanism for specifications to indicate that a particular schema item is deprecated, but a mechanism for directory administrators to mark schema as inactive in the subschema. See draft-ietf-ldapbis-models (or X.501(93)). Kurt _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 23 12:26:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25282 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3NGd0R08117 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:39:00 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NGYw807095; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:34:58 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3N0Da823140 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:13:36 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02148 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1987jf-0006Ul-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:03:40 -0400 Received: from router.boolean.net ([198.144.206.49] helo=pretender.boolean.net ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1987jf-0006Uh-00 for policy@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:03:39 -0400 Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (kurt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3N041DV036772; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:04:01 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030422134416.01f9bac8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:01:45 -0700 To: "Larry S. Bartz" From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] Cc: policy@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3EA5931C.1000805@parnelli.indy.cr.irs.gov> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030421120455.02596b18@127.0.0.1> <5.2.0.9.0.20030421120455.02596b18@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Larry, Adapting well-defined X.500 matching rules for use in LDAP is generally straight forward. Other than assigning an LDAP-specific short name to the rule, the primary engineering choice is which the LDAP-specific encoding to use when transferring the assertion value. Kurt _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 23 15:03:17 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01017 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3NJFRl20395 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:15:27 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NJBU820212; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:11:30 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NJAP820152 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:10:25 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00670 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:57:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198PTQ-0006Sk-00 for policy@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:00:04 -0400 Received: from [66.46.208.99] (helo=srvotgfi.metasolv.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198PTQ-0006Sd-00 for policy@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:00:04 -0400 Received: from SRVOTEMAIL.metasolv.com ([10.13.1.25]) by srvotgfi.metasolv.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:02:26 -0400 Received: by SRVOTEMAIL.metasolv.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <20V95SQL>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:54:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Pana, Mircea" To: "'Kurt D. Zeilenga'" , policy@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Policy] draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:54:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2003 19:02:26.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[E152CE50:01C309CA] Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kurt, Thank you for the clarification. The intent was to indicate (& emphasize) the fact that items of the previously defined schema are no longer used. Alternate schema items are provided by the draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema specification. Is there a formal mechanism that specifications can use to indicate the deprecation of LDAP schema items? Thanks, Mircea. -----Original Message----- From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:48 PM To: policy@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Policy] draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt In regards to the use of OBSOLETE keyword, please note that this is NOT a mechanism for specifications to indicate that a particular schema item is deprecated, but a mechanism for directory administrators to mark schema as inactive in the subschema. See draft-ietf-ldapbis-models (or X.501(93)). Kurt _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Apr 23 15:11:55 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01961 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h3NJO4Q20806 for policy-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:24:04 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NJKB820679; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:20:11 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3NJJ6820607 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:19:06 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA01411 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198Pbp-0006Wo-00 for policy@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:08:45 -0400 Received: from router.boolean.net ([198.144.206.49] helo=pretender.boolean.net ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 198Pbp-0006Wk-00 for policy@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:08:45 -0400 Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (kurt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3NJ94DV045239; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:09:04 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030423120552.02090c98@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:06:47 -0700 To: "Pana, Mircea" From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: RE: [Policy] draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt Cc: policy@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: policy-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: policy-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: policy@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Policy Framework List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 11:54 AM 4/23/2003, Pana, Mircea wrote: >Kurt, > >Thank you for the clarification. The intent was to indicate (& emphasize) >the fact that items of the previously defined schema are no longer used. >Alternate schema items are provided by the >draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema specification. > >Is there a formal mechanism that specifications can use to indicate the >deprecation of LDAP schema items? Just say so in prose. >Thanks, >Mircea. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 8:48 PM >To: policy@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Policy] draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-01.txt > > >In regards to the use of OBSOLETE keyword, please note that >this is NOT a mechanism for specifications to indicate that >a particular schema item is deprecated, but a mechanism for >directory administrators to mark schema as inactive in the >subschema. See draft-ietf-ldapbis-models (or X.501(93)). > >Kurt > >_______________________________________________ >Policy mailing list >Policy@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy _______________________________________________ Policy mailing list Policy@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy