Subject: Meeting Minutes of the Policy Framework WG are attached

From: "John Strassner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:37:04 -0800

due to some time critical items, and also because they were requested
to be posted to this list by the attendees, attached are the minutes.

Comments (other than why is an attachment being posted to the list)
are more than welcome. I'll collect all comments and clarification and
reissue for the archives at the end of the week.

Attendees, thanks again, and please note your action items.

regards,
John Strassner
Co-Chair, Policy Framework WG

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:22:24 -0500

At 08:37 PM 2/22/99 -0800, John Strassner wrote:
> ...

The PDF does make it a little more difficult to quote draft minutes text. ;-)

Agenda bashing:
1 What happened to PFDL?
  It was too controversial at Orlando; Chairs and AD agreed to put it off.
2 Eliot proposed addressing architecture assumptions before schema.
3 Silvano asked for 10 minutes for Keith to present the PIB.

Roadmap:
1 Considering the extensive discussion, and distributed action items,
  the summary that the schema draft is ready for last call seems premature.
2 Drafts should reference authors, not their employers.
  IETF has good reason to insist on individual contributions, unlike DMTF.

Ed's framework overview came before Bob's DMTF class model.

Core Schema Discussion:
1 Before the shift from page-by-page (with new pagination distributed),
  several issues were raised:
a significant disagreement about optimizing schema for retrieval efficiency,
b when do we discuss if these 5 classes are the right ones,
c Motivational Policies to be replaced by a keyword for classification,
d sect 2, para 2: disputed claim of "The simplest" resolved by "One",
e sect 2, para 5: action priority to avoid conflict to be changed to
  "ordered to achieve consistent execution" because conflict avoidance is 
  a different issue. This point called for review of architecture first.
These were not editorial nits, and the shift to a list of issues was more
to get major issues identified than an expression of support.

2 The item in the list of issues, now phrased as "Wording in section 3 where
  "translastion of policy is domain-independent" needs clarification, is
  worded incorrectly. My question is what justifies the strong assertion that
  "This translation is domain-independent." Section 2.1 says PFDL will 
  translate from high-level (business goals and objectives) to core schema.

  Although I did not agree to send a proposal to the list, just to raise the
  question, my action item is this: section 2.1 should be deleted.

3 On optimizing (subclassing) schema for retrieval efficiency, my position
  was that subclassing should only be "precluded" (not "avoided") for reason.

4 In Aftermath ..., the reference to "The Engineering Group" should be 
  clarified to be part of the DMTF.

John