RE: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt

["Stevens, Mark" <markstevens@lucent.com>]

Andrew:

I would agree with you that a repository is not the only point of
interoperability in a policy system, but like Ed, I see it as one of the
more interesting ones. I feel this way because I think that anything that
would take advantage of interoperability at any other point in the policy
system would necessarily have to interoperate at the policy expression level
to support scalability and avoid the proliferation of service- and
vendor-specific, dedicated policy servers. I don't want to have to answer
the question, "So how many different servers do I need to buy to make your
switches work?" with a very high number.

-Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ed Ellesson [SMTP:ellesson@raleigh.ibm.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:30 PM
> To:	Andrew Smith; 'Stevens, Mark'
> Cc:	'mumble@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject:	RE: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt
> 
> Andrew, 
> 
> I think that the repository is an important point of interoperability, so
> that administration systems that are associated with servers and end
> systems can cooperate with administration systems associated with
> firewalls, routers, and those for all the rest of the devices that need to
> operate in concert across a network in an enterprise environment.  
> 
> That does not mean that this is the only point of interoperability in the
> policy story.  Certainly there is interoperability required between the
> PDP/PC and the PEP/PT, among various vendors and device types.  
> 
> I don't think that any of this changes the need for a common terminology.
> The outsourcing usage vs. the provisioning/configuration usage seems to me
> to be the main sticking point on this particular set of terms.  That usage
> difference is the same, regardless of how the interoperability points are
> prioritized, in my view.
> 
> At 10:26 AM 10/27/99 -0700, Andrew Smith wrote:
> >Mark,
> >
> >Do you think that this "difficulty" influences the choice of terminology?
> >
> >I certainly think the repository is *one* point of interoperability
> although
> >not the most interesting in the short term from my (and a lot of
> customers,
> >I think) point of view.
> >
> >Andrew
> >
> >****************************************************************
> >Andrew Smith                              tel: +1 (408) 579-2821
> >Extreme Networks                          fax: +1 (408) 579-3000
> >3585 Monroe St.                   http://www.extremenetworks.com
> >Santa Clara CA 95051-1450        em:  andrew@extremenetworks.com
> >****************************************************************
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stevens, Mark [mailto:markstevens@lucent.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:46 AM
> >> To: 'Andrew Smith'
> >> Cc: 'mumble@ops.ietf.org'
> >> Subject: RE: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt
> >> 
> >...
> >> I don't think that we spoke to it well in the document, but I 
> >> believe that
> >> one of the difficulties that we in each of the working groups 
> >> are facing is
> >> the fact that not everyone believes that a repository 
> >> containing expressions
> >> of policy can be the sole point of interoperability in a 
> >> policy system. Once
> >> we address this problem, I think that we will be better able 
> >> to develop a
> >> unified approach.
> >> 
> >> -Mark
> >> 
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From:	Andrew Smith [SMTP:andrew@extremenetworks.com]
> >> > Sent:	Tuesday, October 26, 1999 7:48 PM
> >> > To:	'Stevens, Mark'; Fran Reichmeyer (E-mail)
> >> > Cc:	mumble@ops.ietf.org
> >> > Subject:	RE: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt
> >> > 
> >> > Mark, Fran,
> >> > 
> >> > I'm having trouble with the terms "Policy Decision 
> >> Point/Policy Consumer"
> >> > and "Policy Enforcement Point/Policy Target". As I 
> >> understood it, and I
> >> > wasn't at the meeting in Chicago so correct me if I'm 
> >> wrong, this draft
> >> > was
> >> > to have come up with a *single* set of terminology that we 
> >> could all start
> >> > using: but maybe your goal in this draft is a more general 
> >> commentary on
> >> > how
> >> > different people use the different terminology (see e.g. 
> >> section 2.3). 
> >> > 
> >> > So my question is this: is "Policy Decision Point/Policy 
> >> Consumer" the new
> >> > term or is this offered as 2 synonyms "Policy Decision 
> >> Point" and "Policy
> >> > Consumer"? If the former then I think it is rather a long 
> >> and clumsy term,
> >> > if the latter then I say: let's pick one.
> >> > 
> >> > Andrew
> >> > 
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Stevens, Mark [mailto:markstevens@lucent.com]
> >> > > Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 1:53 PM
> >> > > To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >> > > Cc: mumble@ops.ietf.org
> >> > > Subject: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Please publish this document as an internet-draft. 
> >> > > 
> >> > > Thanks.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Fran Reichmeyer
> >> > > Mark Stevens
> >> > > 
> >> > > *******************************
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > >      Internet Draft                                    
> >> > > Francis Reichmeyer
> 
> >> > >      Expiration: March 2000                               
> >>   IPHighway
> >> > >      File: draft-ops-mumble-terminology-00.txt         
> >> Mark Stevens
> >> 
> > 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Ed Ellesson
> Sr. Engineer, TCP/IP Technology Management
> IBM Networking Software Products
> Research Triangle Park, NC 
> ellesson@raleigh.ibm.com
> 919-254-4115