Subject: PolicyGroup component type

From: "Mircea Pana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:39:35 -0400

In "2. Modeling Policies", PCIM defines: "Policy groups are aggregations
of policy rules, or aggregations of policy groups, but not both."

PCLS-10, however, specifies in "5.2. The Three policyGroup Classes",
that: "The information model defines a policyGroup class to serve as a
generalized aggregation container. It enables policyRules and
policyGroups to be aggregated in the same container."

Also, PCIMe-00, in "4.5.1. Structuring Decision Strategies" gives an
example where the same policyGroup instance aggregates both policyRules
and policyGroups.

Isn't this an error in PCLS and PCIMe ?

Regards,
Mircea.

---

From: "Mircea Pana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:53:39 -0400

I believe that this message did not get to the list. Therefore, I'm
re-sending it.
Sorry if you receive it twice.

Thanks,
Mircea.

---

From: "Lee Rafalow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:04:07 -0400

Mircea, There's clearly an inconsistency but I don't think it's an error.
The original thinking was that a group would be homogeneous in it's content.
But since then, we've recognized that such a restriction was really
unnecessary in a core model.  The IPSP model, for example, does restrict the
contents of a group to be either groups or rules.  I suspect the decision to
relax the restriction was made after 3060 was stabilized but it might have
been an oversight.  In any case, we should call out the change more clearly
in PCIMe.

For consistency, we might want to make the PCLS draft reflect the old
restriction, but I'm personally inclined to leave it knowing we're changing
it in PCIMe.

Lee M. Rafalow
Voice: 1-919-254-4455; Fax: 1-919-254-6243
IBM Internet Technology Management
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502
RTP, NC 27709 USA
Alternate email: [email-masked]
Home email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 20:16:05 -0700

Lee and Mircea, We made the change to generalize PolicyGroups late last
year.  There were many places in the draft/RFC, where this was listed.  It
looks like we missed 1 place in the text, plus the CIM MOF in the Appendix.
BTW, the CIM MOF has indeed been updated in the V2.5 release.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lee Rafalow
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:04 AM
To: IETF Policy
Subject: Re: PolicyGroup component type

Lee M. Rafalow