The following section was included in the previous revision of PCELS but it has been removed in the current (-05) revision. For the record, these are the PCELS-04 Open Issues (now all closed):
Appendix B: Open Issues
1. Should RFC 2119 be cited as normative reference? PCIM_EXT, PCLS
and other documents refer to RFC 2119 as an informative reference.
RESOLUTION: RFC2119 is cited as normative reference.
2. The object classes pcelsVendorVariable and pcelsVendorValue
defined in this document are not mapped from PCIM_EXT.
Pro: It is estimated that non-standard submodels and their LDAP
schema implementations will need to define a considerable number of
new PolicyVariable and PolicyValue subtypes. In order to avoid an
explosion of LDAP class definitions, the pcelsVendorVariable and
pcelsVendorValue classes introduce a value based extension mechanism
for handling new data types. These classes do not introduce a new
concept but rather a new extension mechanism for an existing concept.
A similar mechanism is defined by PCIM and implemented by PCLS for
creating vendor specific PolicyCondition and PolicyAction entries.
Con: Since PCIM_EXT does not define such classes this document should
not do it either. The purpose of this document this document is to
map the PCIM_EXT model to an LDAP schema, therefore such
functionality is outside its scope.
RESOLUTION: classes preserved
3. PolicyGroup is not explicitly mapped to an LDAP object class.
Pro: Since the PolicyRule has now the capability to aggregate other
PolicyRule instances, this class includes the functionality of the
PolicyGroup. Therefore, an explicitly implementation of the
PolicyGroup class is unnecessary.
Con: The PolicyRule and the PolicyGroup have different semantics so
they should be defined using different classes.
RESOLUTION: PolicyGroup is explicitly mapped to pcelsGroup.
4. pcelsReusableContainer is defined as a subclass of pcimRepository.
Therefore the new class is an extension to the old one, not an
alternative to it.
Pro: As a subclass of pcimRepository, pcelsReusableContainer
is compatible with older implementations that expect containers of
reusable policy elements to be implemented as pcimRepository
entries. The new class extends the functionality of the
pcimRepository class by implementing the ContainedDomain aggregation.
Con: pcelsReusableContainer as subclass of pcimRepository has
potentially detrimental implications on Object Oriented models.
RESOLUTION: inheritance from pcimRepository preserved
5. pcelsConditionAssociation is defined as a subclass of
pcimRuleConditionAssociation. It extends the applicability of
the old class to the aggregation of PolicyContition instances as
components of CompoundPolicyContitions.
Pro: The Condition aggregation mechanism can be reused in both Rule
and CompoundCondition, therefore making it possible to optimize
their implementation.
Con: Mapping of the PCIM_EXT aggregations is implicit therefore more
difficult for some implementations to detect.
RESOLUTION: current implementation preserved