RE: Charter questions

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba@internaut.com]
> 
> > I think if you check the archive, there have been a number 
> of presentations
> > to the AAA WG on  the subject of the Bind PIB.
> 
> I have checked the IETF AAA WG proceedings. There was a 
> presentation from
> the AAARCH folks on data modelling, but none on the Bind PIB, 
> as far as I
> can tell. Can you provide more information on the meetings at 
> which this
> presentation was made? 
> 
[Dave] Yes, modeling was the one I recall. You are correct that this is not
the Bind PIB. However, the Bind PIB makes use of data modeling to achieve
its multi-protocol integration of resource allocation.

> > Likewise some of the authors would appear to be AAA people. 
> 
> Ah... the people involved were from AAARCH IRTF WG, *not* the 
> AAA WG. Was
> the Bind PIB perhaps presented in AAARCH? 
> 
> > So clearly the AAA WG should be aware of this work. 
> 
> I think you mean AAARCH IRTG WG, not AAA WG, right? 
> 
[Dave] Perhaps. Are these people somehow scorned by the AAA WG? Seems to me
there is participation in both.

> > As I recall (from being in the AAA audience when one of these
> > presentations were given) the work in question was 
> determined to be outside
> > the scope of that WG... 
> 
> Check the proceedings again. No such decision was made -- the WG
> did decide not to *mandate* support for data modelling, but left open
> including optional data modelling support, and encouraged further
> refinement of the SMIng proposals. 
> 
[Dave] The AAA WG choice to go with a flat AVP model precludes a data model
approach. These are two very different/contrary methodologies, and the WG is
currently proceeding with the former.

> > Juergen gave some
> > presentations and submitted an ID exactly to this end. This too was
> > determined to be out-of-scope and unrealistic from their time-line
> > perspective.
> 
> It wasn't determined to be out of scope -- the WG just decided not to
> mandate support for it. 
> 
[Dave] I do not understand how to interpret this statement.