Subject: Comments on "draft-rajan-policy-qosschema-00.txt"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 23:23:39 -0800

The following is being forwarded to the policy mailing list.
Message originally sent by "John C. Strassner" <[email-masked]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your recent submission of the draft titled:
  draft-rajan-policy-qosschema-00.txt. 

We, as co-chairs, feel that this draft will need to be revisited, once the
framework and Policy Definition Language (PDL) are finalized. This is
because the framework and PDL contain the required infrastructure
necessary for schemata to operate in, and any schemata developed before
that infrastructure is realized is subject to change.

This working group is founded on a structured approach of first defining
a framework and then defining schema that realize that framework. This is
reflected in the following quote from our charter:

  4. Once the framework and PDL are defined, schema work can be started.
     This will be an iterative process, and it is possible that once
     specific schemata are designed, the PDL and/or the framework will
     be revised.

In addition, there are a number of core policy classes that you reference
that are under control of the DMTF. We, as co-chairs, believe that these
policy classes MUST be driven from the DMTF, because the DMTF CIM (of
which DEN is an extension) supports more than just networking, and must
therefore be more general.  Also, the DMTF CIM and DEN models include
object classes that the IETF will not be primary in defining themselves,
but will be required for scoping the IETF-driven policy rules that
subclass from the core policy objects.

To this end, the DEN classes that form the high-level policy framework
(e.g., PolicyGroup, PolicyRule, PolicyCondition, and PolicyAction)
will be defined in a separate draft, authored by the two co-chairs.
This will be used as a vehicle for IETF members to provide feedback to
and influence the design of these and other related classes being defined
in the DMTF. This is necessary because the DMTF is a members-only forum.
To this end, Ed and John (who are the Chairs of the Service and Networks
WGs of the DMTF, respectively) will act as the informal liaisons between
the DMTF and the IETF. Our acting as formal liaisons is pending the
approval of Fred Baker (the Area Director of the Policy Framework
Working Group), Scott Bradner (the ISOC VP for Standards), and the IAB.

We encourage you to continue to experiment with the QOS-specific schema,
with the understanding that this schema may or may not change
significantly once the larger context is defined.  

We would also like to make clear that we expect to be able to leverage
your hard work in the future revision of the QOS-specific schema draft
in the final version from this Working Group that goes forward on the
standards track. It may, in fact, form the basis for that final version,
assuming that harmonization with the PDL, framework, and core classes
is accomplished.

To support this direction, we request that you remove the core policy
classes from your draft, and clearly identify in the intro to your revised
draft, that this schema is a work in progress, subject to revision once
the PDL, policy framework, and core policy classes are defined by the
policy frameworks working group.

Regards,
John Strassner and Ed Ellesson,
Co-Chairs, Policy Framework Working Group

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:45:16 -0800

The following is being forwarded to the policy mailing list.
Message originally sent by Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Working Group), Scott Bradner (the ISOC VP for Standards), and the IAB.

As expressed to John and Ed in private email, this has my approval. The
IETF doesn't need change control if the document accomplishes what we need,
but we do need excellent and responsive communication with the body
producing it, and we need for the document to be readily available to IETF
implementers whether they work for DMTF members or not. Therefore, yes, Ed
and John are our liaison personnel, and what I ask is publication of
information about how *anyone* may obtain copies of the relevant documents.