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=20
Chief Strategy Officer=20
Intelliden Inc.=20
90 South Cascade Avenue=20
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA=20
phone:  +1.719.785.0648=20
  fax:     +1.719.785.0644=20
email:    [email protected]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:02 PM
> To: John Strassner
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
>=20
>=20
> John,
>=20
> You have started this thread by asking: "why is there no=20
> pcelsRuleValidityAssociation subclass?" In a subsequent=20
> message, you have further detailed the issue by saying:=20
> "Looking at your class structure, since you subclassed other=20
> associations, I was surprised that you didn't subclass this=20
> one as well."
>=20
> Besides, PCELS defines the pcelsConditionAssociation and=20
> pcelsActionAssociation classes by subclassing PCLS classes=20
> for the purpose of extending their semantics. Neither you nor=20
> any other reviewer of the I-D has expressed any issue with=20
> those definitions.
>=20
> The latest proposal *does* accommodate your original request=20
> but I see you bringing up a different issue now. So, if you=20
> think that it is wrong to subclass the PCLS association=20
> class(es), please help me out by pointing to the LDAP (or=20
> other) specification that would be violated. I am not aware of any.
>=20
> Thank you,
> Mircea.
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:45 PM
> > To: Pana, Mircea; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hmm.
> >=20
> > First, I don't think subclassing helps, because the root
> > problem is that
> > pcimRuleValidityAssociation doesn't apply to a pcelsRule=20
> > (pcelsRule is a
> > sibling of pcimRule. Thus, I believe that you need a new class.
> >=20
> > Second, rather than pcelsValidityAssociation, could I suggest=20
> > pcelsRuleValidityAssociation?
> >=20
> > regards,
> > John Strassner
> > TeleManagement Forum Advisory Director
> >=20
> >=20
> > John Strassner
> > Chief Strategy Officer=20
> > Intelliden Inc.=20
> > 90 South Cascade Avenue=20
> > Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA=20
> > phone:  +1.719.785.0648=20
> >   fax:     +1.719.785.0644=20
> > email:    [email protected]
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:48 PM
> > > To: [email protected]; John Strassner
> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > To accomodate the change requested by Joel, I'm making the
> > > proposal below. Please review it and let me know as soon as=20
> > > possible whether you like or not.
> > >=20
> > > Instead of re-using pcimRuleValidityAssociation, PCELS would
> > > introduce a new class: pcelsValidityAssociation. This new=20
> > > class would be a subclass of pcimRuleValidityAssociation and=20
> > > it would not introduce any new attributes. Its instances=20
> > > would be subordinated to pcelsRule instances. (Much like=20
> > > pcelsConditionAssociation etc.) The pcelsRule class, instead=20
> > > of reusing the pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, would=20
> > > use a new attribute (pcelsValidityPeriodList) as reference to=20
> > > its pcelsValidityAssociation instances.
> > >=20
> > > In addition, Note 1 in section 5.4 would be removed.
> > >=20
> > > Regards,
> > > Mircea.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:37 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]; John Strassner; Pana, Mircea
> > > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > I have looked this over again, and I think I understand the
> > question.
> > >=20
> > > From an object mapping and class definition perspective, it
> > > appears to me that extending the definition of=20
> > > pcimRuleValidityAssociation to point to a pcelsRule is=20
> > > probably not appropriate.
> > >=20
> > > It seems to me thinking about this that adding a different
> > > association class for the pcelsRule - time-period=20
> > > relationship will not adversely affect either existim PCLS=20
> > > implementors or future PCELS implementors.  Ruding churn in=20
> > > an I-D before publication is not a good reason to avoid=20
> > > making a technically correct change.
> > >=20
> > > However, I could easily have missed multiple aspects of this.
> > > If there are folks looking at implementing PCELS who have an=20
> > > opinion on the complexity of either the current "extension"=20
> > > or the proposed additional class, please speak up. If there=20
> > > are LDAP folks (other than John, who has been very helpful)=20
> > > who can shed light or opinions on this, I would love to hear=20
> > > from them.
> > >=20
> > > 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=20
> > > hear nothing, I will ask Mircea and company if they can make=20
> > > this one last change, and hand the document to Bert for=20
> publication.
> > >=20
> > > And then we will officially close the working group!
> > >=20
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel M. Halpern
> > >=20
> > > At 07:55 PM 6/3/2004 -0600, John Strassner wrote:
> > >=20
> > > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> > > To: "Pana, Mircea" <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: <[email protected]>,
> > >         <[email protected]>,
> > >         <[email protected]>
> > >=20
> > > Hi Mircea,
> > > =20
> > > thanks for your thoughtful response.
> > > =20
> > > Regarding the first issue, I still disagree. The definition
> > > of the class doesn't allow this, even though the semantics=20
> > > remain unchanged. Since we are at an impasse, I'm happy to=20
> > > let Joel rule one way or the other.
> > > =20
> > > Regarding changing the note in section 5.4, I agree with=20
> the change.
> > > =20
> > > Regarding the DIT containment issue, I'm happy with your=20
> suggestion.
> > > =20
> > >=20
> > > regards,
> > > John Strassner
> > > -----Original Message-----=20
> > > From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> > > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:16 AM=20
> > > To: John Strassner=20
> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]=20
> > > Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Look for my responses in <mircea4></mircea4>. Sorry, I'm slow
> > > to respond as well.=20
> > > Regards,=20
> > > Mircea.=20
> >=20
>=20