[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Policy] RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
Hi,
We thing that creating a pcimRuleValidityAssociation subclass we can
extend its capabilities in order to associate pcelsRule and
pcimTPCAuxClass. If the pcelsRuleConditionAssociation and
pcelsRuleActionAssociation subclasses are accepted as they are
defined, then the pcimRuleValidityAssociation should be correctly
defined as well because the changes that were made to the these classes
are the same that now have been proposed to define
pcelsRuleActionAssociation.
Technically there is no problem creating the PCELS model in a LDAP
using a pcelsRuleActionAssociation as a pcimRuleValidityAssociation
subclass:
DN reference +---------------------+
+------------| pcelsRule Subclass |
| +---------------------+
| |
| +---------+ DIT Containment
v |
+-------------------------------+
| pcelsRuleValidityAssociation |
+-------------------------------+
At Technical University of Catalonia, we have implemented the last
draft version (PCELS-05) (+ the last proposed change) in a distributed
openLDAP server and the storaged policies are retrieved, and
prodessed by the PDP with no problems.
As an alternative, the pcelsRuleValidityAssociation could be defined
on the same level than pcimRuleValidityAssociation and reusing its atributes:
( OID NAME 'pcelsRuleValidityAssociation'
DESC 'This defines the scheduled activation or deactivation
of a policy rule.'
SUP pcimPolicy
STRUCTURAL
MAY ( pcimValidityConditionName $ pcimTimePeriodConditionDN )
)
Opinions?
David Morón
Antoni Barba
Technical University of Catalonia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine. Since it is technically incorrect, please be advised that I will
object in any Last Call.
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: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:13 PM
To: John Strassner; joel at stevecrocker.com
Cc: bwijnen at lucent.com; policy at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
John, Although very interesting, your arguments have failed
to convince me that your suggestion would be a better option.
We have to agree that we disagree
Joel, Unless somebody produces arguments to prove the
contrary, I would like to ask you to accept the version
currently included in the I-D (i.e. reuse of
pcimRuleValidityAssociation for pcelsRule) with the revised
Note 1 in section 5.4 on the premise that: 1. it accurately
maps the PCIMe model 2. it does not violate current LDAP
recommendations 3. it is a practical approach (simplifies
implementations)
Thank you,
Mircea.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Strassner [mailto:John.Strassner at intelliden.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:05 PM
> To: Pana, Mircea
> Cc: joel at stevecrocker.com; bwijnen at lucent.com; policy at ietf.org
> Subject: [Policy] RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
>
>
> I don't think we're making progress anymore. Regardless of
what I may
> have said, or what you think I may have said in the beginning, I've
> given you very clear rationale as to what should be done.
>
> One last time: you can't subclass the existing association
because it
> was defined between classes that do not include pcelsRule.
>
> I have nothing else to say, as I don't know how to make this any
> clearer.
>
>
> 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: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:02 PM
> > To: John Strassner
> > Cc: policy at ietf.org; bwijnen at lucent.com; joel at stevecrocker.com
> > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > You have started this thread by asking: "why is there no
> > pcelsRuleValidityAssociation subclass?" In a subsequent
> > message, you have further detailed the issue by saying:
> > "Looking at your class structure, since you subclassed other
> > associations, I was surprised that you didn't subclass this
> > one as well."
> >
> > Besides, PCELS defines the pcelsConditionAssociation and
> > pcelsActionAssociation classes by subclassing PCLS classes
> > for the purpose of extending their semantics. Neither you nor
> > any other reviewer of the I-D has expressed any issue with
> > those definitions.
> >
> > The latest proposal *does* accommodate your original request
> > but I see you bringing up a different issue now. So, if you
> > think that it is wrong to subclass the PCLS association
> > class(es), please help me out by pointing to the LDAP (or
> > other) specification that would be violated. I am not
aware of any.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Mircea.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Strassner [mailto:John.Strassner at intelliden.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:45 PM
> > > To: Pana, Mircea; policy at ietf.org
> > > Cc: bwijnen at lucent.com; joel at stevecrocker.com
> > > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy
--
David Morón Ruano
Coordinador de Proyectos
Grupo OpenWired, S.L.
Cardenal Reig, 26, entr. 3? - 08028 - Barcelona (Spain)
Tel (+34) 93/440 99 90 - Fax (+34) 93/448 41 44
www.openwired.net, www.tecnologialinux.com
_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy