[Policy] RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06

["John Strassner" <John.Strassner at intelliden.com>]

Hmm.

First, I don't think subclassing helps, because the root problem is that
pcimRuleValidityAssociation doesn't apply to a pcelsRule (pcelsRule is a
sibling of pcimRule. Thus, I believe that you need a new class.

Second, rather than pcelsValidityAssociation, could I suggest
pcelsRuleValidityAssociation?

regards,
John Strassner
TeleManagement Forum Advisory Director


John Strassner 
Chief Strategy Officer 
Intelliden Inc. 
90 South Cascade Avenue 
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA 
phone:  +1.719.785.0648 
  fax:     +1.719.785.0644 
email:    john.strassner at intelliden.com



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana at metasolv.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: policy at ietf.org; John Strassner
> Cc: bwijnen at lucent.com; joel at stevecrocker.com
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> 
> 
> To accomodate the change requested by Joel, I'm making the 
> proposal below. Please review it and let me know as soon as 
> possible whether you like or not.
> 
> Instead of re-using pcimRuleValidityAssociation, PCELS would 
> introduce a new class: pcelsValidityAssociation. This new 
> class would be a subclass of pcimRuleValidityAssociation and 
> it would not introduce any new attributes. Its instances 
> would be subordinated to pcelsRule instances. (Much like 
> pcelsConditionAssociation etc.) The pcelsRule class, instead 
> of reusing the pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, would 
> use a new attribute (pcelsValidityPeriodList) as reference to 
> its pcelsValidityAssociation instances.
> 
> In addition, Note 1 in section 5.4 would be removed.
> 
> Regards,
> Mircea.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel at stevecrocker.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: policy at ietf.org
> Cc: bwijnen at lucent.com; John Strassner; Pana, Mircea
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> 
> 
> I have looked this over again, and I think I understand the question.
> 
> From an object mapping and class definition perspective, it 
> appears to me that extending the definition of 
> pcimRuleValidityAssociation to point to a pcelsRule is 
> probably not appropriate.
> 
> It seems to me thinking about this that adding a different 
> association class for the pcelsRule - time-period 
> relationship will not adversely affect either existim PCLS 
> implementors or future PCELS implementors.  Ruding churn in 
> an I-D before publication is not a good reason to avoid 
> making a technically correct change.
> 
> However, I could easily have missed multiple aspects of this. 
> If there are folks looking at implementing PCELS who have an 
> opinion on the complexity of either the current "extension" 
> or the proposed additional class, please speak up. If there 
> are LDAP folks (other than John, who has been very helpful) 
> who can shed light or opinions on this, I would love to hear 
> from them.
> 
> Given how many times we have been around the block on this, I 
> would like to ask folks to respond within one week.  If we 
> hear nothing, I will ask Mircea and company if they can make 
> this one last change, and hand the document to Bert for publication.
> 
> And then we will officially close the working group!
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 07:55 PM 6/3/2004 -0600, John Strassner wrote:
> 
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> To: "Pana, Mircea" <mpana at metasolv.com>
> Cc: <joel at stevecrocker.com>,
>         <bwijnen at lucent.com>,
>         <policy at ietf.org>
> 
> Hi Mircea,
>  
> thanks for your thoughtful response.
>  
> Regarding the first issue, I still disagree. The definition 
> of the class doesn't allow this, even though the semantics 
> remain unchanged. Since we are at an impasse, I'm happy to 
> let Joel rule one way or the other.
>  
> Regarding changing the note in section 5.4, I agree with the change.
>  
> Regarding the DIT containment issue, I'm happy with your suggestion.
>  
> 
> regards,
> John Strassner 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:mpana at metasolv.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:16 AM 
> To: John Strassner 
> Cc: joel at stevecrocker.com; bwijnen at lucent.com; policy at ietf.org 
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> 
> 
> Look for my responses in <mircea4></mircea4>. Sorry, I'm slow 
> to respond as well. 
> Regards, 
> Mircea. 

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy