RE: RE: PCELS position
David McTavish <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:30:09 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.policy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C382B0.BD3AFB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" One example of attribute re-use is the x500UniqueIdentifier attribute, which is defined in RFC 2256, and again used in inetOrgPerson RFC 2798. d. -----Original Message----- From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:47 PM To: 'John Strassner '; ''Robert Moore' ' Cc: ''Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' '; ''David McTavish' '; ''Joel M. Halpern' '; Pana, Mircea; ''[email protected]' ' Subject: RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position John, > 2) I do not believe that the word "reuse" applies when an > attribute is defined in one class, with one set of > semantics, and then is blopped into a new class with > completely different semantics. That is what I meant > by stealing an OID. I do not understand the difference in semantics that you are referring to. Let's take pcimRuleEnables one more time as example. PCLS defines it as: "An integer indicating whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1), disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3)". In PCLS this attribute indicates the state of pcimRule, class mapped from PCIM's PolicyRule. In PCELS we use (but not redefine) this attribute preserving its its syntax and semantics to indicate the state of a pcimPolicyRule, class mapped from PCIMe's PolicyRule. Doesn't the attribute (I stress: the attribute not the class that uses it) have the same semantics in these two cases? Regards, Mircea. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C382B0.BD3AFB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN class=871582715-24092003>One example of attribute re-use is the x500UniqueIdentifier attribute, which is defined in RFC 2256, and again used in inetOrgPerson RFC 2798.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN class=871582715-24092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN class=871582715-24092003>d.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2><SPAN class=871582715-24092003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:47 PM<BR><B>To:</B> 'John Strassner '; ''Robert Moore' '<BR><B>Cc:</B> ''Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' '; ''David McTavish' '; ''Joel M. Halpern' '; Pana, Mircea; ''[email protected]' '<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Policy] RE: PCELS position<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=2> John,</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>> 2) I do not believe that the word "reuse" applies when an </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> attribute is defined in one class, with one set of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> semantics, and then is blopped into a new class with </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> completely different semantics. That is what I meant </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> by stealing an OID. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>I do not understand the difference in semantics that you are referring to. </FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>Let's take pcimRuleEnables one more time as example. PCLS defines it as:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>"An integer indicating whether a policy rule is administratively enabled (value=1), disabled (value=2), or enabled for debug (value=3)". In PCLS this attribute indicates the state of pcimRule, class mapped from PCIM's PolicyRule. In PCELS we use (but not redefine) this attribute preserving its its syntax and semantics to indicate the state of a pcimPolicyRule, class mapped from PCIMe's PolicyRule. Doesn't the attribute (I stress: the attribute not the class that uses it) have the same semantics in these two cases?</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Mircea.</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C382B0.BD3AFB00--