Subject: [Policy] pcimRuleConditionAssociation can contain pcimConditionAuxClass

From: David McTavish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:19:16 -0500

Just wondering if this association means that a condition can contain
conditions?  It seems that all of the *AuxClass objects are used to infer
that an object can contain child objects of type *. This seems especially
evident via the PcimRuleAuxClass and PcimGroupAuxClass.  

It also appears that the pcimRuleConditionAssociation is an abstract
implementation of a core PcimCondition (on par with how a PcimRule object
represents a rule). After reading through the draft, it seems that the
naming convention for classes as they relate to conditions and actions are
not 100% in-sync with rules and groups. This seems somewhat
misleading/confusing to users of this standard, and I was wondering if there
was any explanation/reasoning for the change in naming convention between
these sets of objects?

thx,
d.
_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy