Subject: NEWLY REVISED Policy Framework Working Group Charter

From: "John Strassner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:13:29 -0700

Policy Enthusiasts,

First, a heartfelt welcome to Bert and Randy for being our new
ADs. And many thanks to Fred for taking us this far, we really
appreciate it.

Below is a new version of our proposed new charter. This version
takes into account the new IESG position on the PIB, plus talks
with both Fred and Bert and other working group chairs and ADs.

Please reply with comments on this charter asap - we'd like to
get working group consensus before Oslo.

regards,
John and Ed

-------------------------------------- start
here ---------------------------------

Policy Framework Working Group Charter

Chairs:

Ed Ellesson <[email-masked]>
John Strassner <[email-masked]>

O&M Area Directors:

Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Randy Bush <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:

  List: [email-masked]

  To Subscribe: [email-masked]
  In Body:      subscribe
  Archive:      http//www.raleigh.ibm.com/maillists/policy/

Description of the Working Group:

Problem Statement:

There is a need to represent, manage, share and reuse policies
and policy information in a vendor-independent, interoperable,
and scalable manner. This working group has three main goals.
First, to provide a framework that will meet these needs. Second,
to define an extensible information model and specific schemata
compliant with that framework that can be used for general policy
representation (called the core information model and schema).
For now, only a directory schema will be defined. Third, to
extend
the core information model and schema to address the needs of
QoS traffic management (called the QoS information model and
schemata).

The viability of the framework will be proven by demonstrating
that high-level policy information can be translated into device
configuration information for network QoS applications. This
requires the coordination of the core and QoS schemata, the
PIB and MIB being developed in DiffServ, and possibly
extensions to COPS provisioning, which is being developed
in RAP. A secondary goal of this framework is to show that this
general development process can be extended to other
application domains.

Objectives:

The objectives of this working group are to:

1. Identify a set of representative use cases to guide us in
defining a policy framework, information model, and schemata
to store, retrieve, distribute and process policies. These use
cases should map to a set of policy rules, and aid us in defining
the composition of policies.

2. Define a framework for intra-domain policy definition and
administration for a heterogeneous set of Policy Decision and
Enforcement Points. The framework will be shown to be able to
be used to represent, distribute, and manage policies and
policy information in an unambiguous, interoperable manner in
a single administrative domain. This framework will be applied
to network QoS.

3. A general information model, derived from the CIM/DEN
policy model, will be produced. This is intended to serve as a
generic means for representing policies and policy information.
In addition, a mapping of this information model to a form that
can be implemented in a directory that uses LDAPv3 as its
access protocol will also be done.

4. Refinements to the above, for representing signaled and
provisioned QoS, will be done. That is, both the information
model as well as the schema will be extended to focus on
network QoS. This will also be used to prove the general
extensibility of the model.

5. A key part of demonstrating that this model can provide
end-to-end translation of high-level policy specifications to
device configurations is to ensure that the information
model and schemata are compatible with and can use the
information contained in the PIB(s) and MIB(s) being
developed in the Differentiated Services WG. To this end,
the Policy Framework WG will supply input to the
development of the PIBs, and include all applicable PIBs
and MIBs in its development considerations for the
framework, information model, and schemata.

6. Policy information may be communicated using several
protocols. The COPS protocol, being developed in the RAP
WG, is an example of one such protocol. The Policy
Framework WG will work with the RAP WG to define usage
directives for use of the COPS base protocol to support
policy information exchange transactions within the
framework being standardized in the Policy Framework WG.

7. The Policy Framework WG will work closely with the
IPSP WG to ensure that the IPsec data model fits and can
be supported within the general framework defined by the
Policy Framework WG.

8. The Policy Framework WG will work with other WGs as
needed to ensure that the framework, information model,
and specific schemata produced meet the needs of these
WGs.

9. To ensure that security issues are addressed, Russ Mundy
will serve as this working group's security adviser.

10. The charter specifically excludes:
  -protocol definition
  -schema attributes or classes that are vendor-specific
   (although the schema defined in this group will be defined
   in a way that is extensible by specific vendors)

Goals and Milestones:

1. Policy terminology draft (Informational Track)
   - Existing draft already submitted
   - Working Group Last Call by August 1999
2. Use case definition (Informational Track)
   - First draft by end of August 1999
   - Working Group Last Call by November 1999
3. Core information model draft (Standards Track)
   - Existing draft already submitted
   - Working group Last Call September 1999
4. Core LDAP schema draft (Standards Track)
   - Existing draft already submitted
   - Working group Last Call October 1999
5. Framework draft (Informational Track)
   - Existing draft already submitted
   - Working group Last Call, December 19996
6. QoS Schema draft(s) (Standards Track)
   - Existing draft already submitted
   - Working group Last Call, March 2000

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:13:55 +0200

John,

> with both Fred and Bert and other working group chairs and ADs.
	[Dan]  Can you update the WG about 'the new IESG position on the
PIB', or provide us a pointer about where this information is available?

	Is there a commonly agreed reference for the PIB concept?

	Thanks and Regards,

	Dan