Subject: [Policy] RE: PCELS position

From: David McTavish <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 22:46:46 -0400

Opening the box a little further, is it still possible to provide feedback
to PCIMe so that its original intent can be maintained, while preserving
option #1? It seems that the work so far in PCELS is correct in relation to
the PCIMe proposal, and perhaps the schema changes that we are debating
should in fact be taken to a higher level.
Is PCIMe considered so complete, that it is beyond modification, if such
modification could preserve its intent while also adhering to the desires of
maintaining consistency with PCIM and PCLS?
 
d.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:34 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: 'John Strassner'; 'David McTavish'; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: PCELS position

After having read so many arguments on the position of PCELS relative to
PCLS I've come to the conclusion that people wish PCELS to be either a fully
interoperable extension of PCLS or a stand-alone policy schema. At the same
time the main goal of PCELS was to implement PCIMe (as an increment of
PCIM).

Based on these facts, I can see three major options (and perhaps a lot of
variations): 
1. If PCELS ignores or alters some of the PCIMe recommendations, then it can
be fully interoperable with PCLS. 
2. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe it must at the minimum define
replacement for a couple of the schema items defined by PCLS.

3. For PCELS to be fully compliant with PCIMe and stand-alone (i.e. no
dependency on PCLS), it would need to redefine many (otherwise re-usable)
PCLS schema items.

So, my question to the group is: of the three options above, which one do
you like the most (or find the easiest to live with)?

Joel, is #1 a viable option? 

Thank you, 
Mircea.