Subject: [Policy] Roles and [un]rooted PolicySets

From: "Mircea Pana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:42:12 -0400

PCIMe-03 states that:
"A PolicySet instance is unrooted in that context if and only if there
is no PolicySetComponent association to a parent PolicySet that is also
related to the same managed element."

How should the following situation be interpreted?

            +---+                      +-----------+
            | A |                      |  I/F  X   |
            +---+                      | has roles |
             / \                       |   A & B   |
            /   \                      +-----------+
        +---+    ooo
        | B | 
        +---+ 
         / 
        /
        ooo

In the context of the interface X:

1. PolicySets A and B are unrooted because they are independently
selected using  the role-based policy selection (according to rfc3060).
However B is selected
a second time (rooted this time) through the inherited role A.

2. PolicySet A is unrooted but PolicySet B is rooted (under A) because B
is associated to a parent (PolicySet A) that is also related to the same
managed element. (according to the definition from PCIMe-03)

IMO the first option is right and PCIMe needs a little clarification.

Regards,
Mircea.

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

---

From: "Lee Rafalow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:39:21 -0400

Mircea,

Your first interpretation is correct.  One might select both roles A & B if
B is not a subset of A but simply has some intersection set.  How's this for
a clarification?

"A PolicySet instance is unrooted in that context if and only if there is no
PolicySetComponent association to a parent PolicySet that is also related to
the same managed element."

And insert:

"These PolicySetComponent associations are traversed up the tree without
regard to how a PolicySet instance came to be associated with the
ManagedElement."

Lee