Re: Outsourcing and Provisioning common model

[Kwok Ho Chan <khchan@NortelNetworks.com>]

In the UMTS Go PIB, we are using the Provisioning Mode.
We pick this because we are thinking of a spectrum of dynamic-ness of
provisioning.  For example, the aggregated provisioning using the DiffServ
PIB more toward the core of the network can be more static.  While the
per user service policy more toward the edge of the network can be more
dynamic.  Equipment vendors may not want to control and dictate how
static/dynamic the provisioning have to be, the providers who create the
services using the equipment should have flexibility on determining the
degree of dynamic-ness required to create the service that fits the market
the provider is in.

Notice a continuous spectrum of dynamic-ness of provisioning provide
a more flexible model that can be easily fitted to the service one wants
to create using Policy Control.
IMHO, I think this is better than a binary choice of Outsourcing/Provisioning.

I have invited Shai to be a co-author of the COPS Architecture draft that
I started writing to put all these together.  Shai have accepted the invitation
and we will be working on this shortly with couple of other co-authors.
So I think this discussion on the list is good to start this process.

Please provide further comments and other points of view.
-- Kwok --


At 04:37 PM 1/31/02 +0100, Nguyen Thi Mai Trang wrote:

>Hi everybody,
>
>I'm also interested in this presentation at 52th IETF. This mode take 
>advantage
>of both the dynamicity of Outsourcing mode and the flexibility of using PIB of
>Configuration mode. I had a question about "What type of ClientSI (Signaled
>ClientSI or Named ClientSI) we can use in the unifed mode?" that was 
>supposed to
>discussed in the mailling list.
>
>I would like to know in COPS-UMTS, which type of ClientSI object is 
>intended to
>be used?
>
>In my opinon, and also in COPS-SLS, I used Signaled ClientSI  because the
>objective of the information in the clientSI object is signalling in 
>despite of
>their form of PIB. I preferes the terminology "Using PIB in Outsourcing 
>mode" to
>"Using COPS-PR in Outsourcing mode" because, for me, COPS-PR is already the
>provisioning mode. "Using Provisioning mode in Outsourcing mode" sounds not
>logic :-)
>
>What do you think about it?
>Thanks,
>Mai Trang
>
>Yacine El Mghazli wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > At the last IETF meeting, Shai Herzog launched a discussion about a COPS
> > common model merging both outsourcing and provisioning modes. The fact was
> > that some recent drafts use COPS-PR to OUTSOURCE information towards 
> the PDP
> > (umts, access-bind, sls...) and the goal was to identify where the 2 modes
> > meets and to agree on a common model.
> >
> > This discussion was supposed to take place on the mailing list, but...
> > doesnt come !
> >
> > Speaking as a co-author of the cops-sls draft, I'm wondering about this
> > common model and, after all, about the future of such practises.
> >
> > thanks,
> > yacine
> >
> > -- Yacine El Mghazli
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   Alcatel R&I
> >   Next Generation Router & Cross-Connect - NGRX
> >   Marcoussis, France
> >   Tel  +33 1 6963 4187
> >   Fax  +33 1 6963 1169
> >   yacine.el_mghazli@alcatel.fr
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Da Silva, Pedro" <pdasilva@orchestream.com>
> > To: <rap@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 12:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: A question about SPPI
> >
> > > Man, Ravi,
> > >
> > > The uniqueness clause also states that "The specified set of attributes
> > > provide a necessary and sufficient set of values by which to identify an
> > > instance of this PRC".
> > > As such does an optional attribute constitute a necessary one for
> > UNIQUENESS
> > > clauses?
> > > Also, considering the case where a UNIQUENESS clause's set is composed of
> > > optional attributes only, does that constitute a sufficient set by which
> > to
> > > identify an instance of the PRC?
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Pedro
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sahita, Ravi [mailto:ravi.sahita@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:50 PM
> > > To: 'Man.M.Li@nokia.com'; rap@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: A question about SPPI
> > >
> > >
> > > Man Li,
> > >
> > > The UNIQUENESS clause itself is optional. The SPPI does
> > > not put any constraints on which attributes can be specified
> > > in this clause other than -
> > > 1.  The attribute named in the PIB-INDEX clause may not be
> > >     present in the UNIQUENESS clause.
> > > 2. An attribute may not appear more than once in a UNIQUENESS
> > >    clause.
> > >
> > > So, yes, the UNIQUNESS clause can contain optional attributes
> > > as long as it follows the rules above.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps,
> > > Ravi
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Man.M.Li@nokia.com [mailto:Man.M.Li@nokia.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:08 AM
> > > To: rap@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: A question about SPPI
> > >
> > >
> > > In a PIB table, some attributes can be optional. Should the UNIQUENESS
> > > clause exclude optional attributes? In other words, can a UNIQUENESS
> > clause
> > > contain any optional attributes?
> > >
> > > Man Li
> > >
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------
>Nguyen Thi Mai Trang
>Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
>Dept. INFRES - Bur. C234-4
>46 Rue Barrault - 75013 Paris
>Tel: 01 45 81 74 61 - Fax : 01 45 81 31 19
>email : trnguyen@enst.fr