Policy Framework (policy)

headers

Girish Pujari | 2 Dec 2002 10:38

SimplePolicyCondition

Hi,

I am going through the PCIMe.

The class SimplePolicyCondition is not clearly defined in the draft.

As per the section 3.2.6. ( Variables and Values ) in the document "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"

the simplecondition / policyvariable / policyvalue are imported from QPIM.

But I cant see the same in the document "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt".

Can I get the CIM definition for the SimplePolicyCondition.

Thanx
Regards

Girish Pujari

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

headers

Marcus Brunner | 2 Dec 2002 11:47

Re: SimplePolicyCondition

The definition has basically moved from the QoS model to PCIMe, because for 
example the SimplePolicyCondition is used in many other models as well 
among them the QoS model.

Marcus

--On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 15:08 +0530 Girish Pujari 
<pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I am going through the PCIMe.
>
> The class SimplePolicyCondition is not clearly defined in the draft.
>
> As per the section 3.2.6. ( Variables and Values ) in the document
> "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"  the simplecondition / policyvariable
> / policyvalue are imported from  QPIM.
> But I cant see the same in the document
> "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt".
> Can I get the CIM definition for the SimplePolicyCondition.
>
>
>
> Thanx
> Regards
>
> Girish Pujari
>
> *********************************************************
> Disclaimer
>
> This message (including any attachments) contains
> confidential information intended for a specific
> individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you should
> delete this message and are hereby notified that
> any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message, or the taking of any action based on it,
> is strictly prohibited.
>
> *********************************************************
> Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
>

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

headers

Girish Pujari | 2 Dec 2002 12:41

Re: SimplePolicyCondition

Marcus,

Thanx for that quick responce.
I am refering to the ietf document "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"
The SimplePolicyCondition is refered but not defined.
Where can I find it.I want to the properties of this class.

Thanx
Regards
Girish Pujari

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Brunner <brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de>
To: Girish Pujari <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com>; <policy <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition

> The definition has basically moved from the QoS model to PCIMe, because
for
> example the SimplePolicyCondition is used in many other models as well
> among them the QoS model.
>
> Marcus
>
> --On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 15:08 +0530 Girish Pujari
> <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am going through the PCIMe.
> >
> > The class SimplePolicyCondition is not clearly defined in the draft.
> >
> > As per the section 3.2.6. ( Variables and Values ) in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"  the simplecondition /
policyvariable
> > / policyvalue are imported from  QPIM.
> > But I cant see the same in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt".
> > Can I get the CIM definition for the SimplePolicyCondition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanx
> > Regards
> >
> > Girish Pujari
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message (including any attachments) contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific
> > individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, you should
> > delete this message and are hereby notified that
> > any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message, or the taking of any action based on it,
> > is strictly prohibited.
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> Network Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
> WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
> personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus
>
>
>

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains 
confidential information intended for a specific 
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you should 
delete this message and are hereby notified that 
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, 
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

headers

Robert Moore | 3 Dec 2002 00:58

Re: SimplePolicyCondition


Girish,

See section 6.4 of PCIMe.  The class introduces no new properties - its
role is to participate in the aggregations that tie a SimplePolicyCondition
to its variable and value.

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
Advanced Design and Technology
Application Integration Middleware Division
IBM Software Group
+1-919-254-4436
remoore <at> us.ibm.com

                                                                                                       
                      "Girish Pujari"                                                                  
                      <pujarig <at> mahindra        To:       <policy <at> ietf.org>                             
                      bt.com>                  cc:                                                     
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition            
                      policy-admin <at> ietf                                                                
                      .org                                                                             

                                                                                                       
                      12/02/2002 07:00                                                                 
                      AM                                                                               

Marcus,

Thanx for that quick responce.
I am refering to the ietf document "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"
The SimplePolicyCondition is refered but not defined.
Where can I find it.I want to the properties of this class.

Thanx
Regards
Girish Pujari

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Brunner <brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de>
To: Girish Pujari <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com>; <policy <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition

> The definition has basically moved from the QoS model to PCIMe, because
for
> example the SimplePolicyCondition is used in many other models as well
> among them the QoS model.
>
> Marcus
>
> --On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 15:08 +0530 Girish Pujari
> <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am going through the PCIMe.
> >
> > The class SimplePolicyCondition is not clearly defined in the draft.
> >
> > As per the section 3.2.6. ( Variables and Values ) in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"  the simplecondition /
policyvariable
> > / policyvalue are imported from  QPIM.
> > But I cant see the same in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt".
> > Can I get the CIM definition for the SimplePolicyCondition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanx
> > Regards
> >
> > Girish Pujari
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message (including any attachments) contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific
> > individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, you should
> > delete this message and are hereby notified that
> > any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message, or the taking of any action based on it,
> > is strictly prohibited.
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> Network Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
> WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
> personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus
>
>
>

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

headers

Pana, Mircea | 2 Dec 2002 15:25

RE: SimplePolicyCondition

see section 6.4. on page 43.

-----Original Message-----
From: Girish Pujari [mailto:pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 7:00 AM
To: policy <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition

Marcus,

Thanx for that quick responce.
I am refering to the ietf document "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt"
The SimplePolicyCondition is refered but not defined.
Where can I find it.I want to the properties of this class.

Thanx
Regards
Girish Pujari

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Brunner <brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de>
To: Girish Pujari <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com>; <policy <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition

> The definition has basically moved from the QoS model to PCIMe, because
for
> example the SimplePolicyCondition is used in many other models as well
> among them the QoS model.
>
> Marcus
>
> --On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 15:08 +0530 Girish Pujari
> <pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am going through the PCIMe.
> >
> > The class SimplePolicyCondition is not clearly defined in the draft.
> >
> > As per the section 3.2.6. ( Variables and Values ) in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-pcim-ext-08.txt" the simplecondition /
policyvariable
> > / policyvalue are imported from QPIM.
> > But I cant see the same in the document
> > "draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model-08.txt".
> > Can I get the CIM definition for the SimplePolicyCondition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanx
> > Regards
> >
> > Girish Pujari
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message (including any attachments) contains
> > confidential information intended for a specific
> > individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
> > If you are not the intended recipient, you should
> > delete this message and are hereby notified that
> > any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> > message, or the taking of any action based on it,
> > is strictly prohibited.
> >
> > *********************************************************
> > Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Dr. Marcus Brunner
> Network Laboratories
> NEC Europe Ltd.
>
> E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
> WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
> personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus
>
>
>

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

_______________________________________________
Policy mailing list
Policy <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy

headers

Pana, Mircea | 2 Dec 2002 15:54

ENUM property values

Most ENUM property values in Policy documents use consecutive integers starting at 1. The integer value 0 (zero) is skipped. Was there a particular reason for this? Some implementers would prefer such values to start at 0.

Thanks,
Mircea.

headers

Marcus Brunner | 3 Dec 2002 17:37

Re: ENUM property values

I normally is good practice to start enums with 1 (Most of the MIB 
definition follow this practice). Normally, it makes implemetnations more 
robust when starting with 1.

Marcus

--On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 08:54 -0600 "Pana, Mircea" 
<mpana <at> metasolv.com> wrote:

>
> Most ENUM property values in Policy documents use consecutive integers
> starting at 1. The integer value 0 (zero) is skipped. Was there a
> particular reason for this? Some implementers would prefer such values to
> start at 0.
>
> Thanks,
> Mircea.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

headers

Pana, Mircea | 3 Dec 2002 17:46

RE: ENUM property values

Is 0 (zero) avoided in the model(s) to allow implementations to reserve it for special situations that are outside the scope of the model? Are there examples where 0 (zero) makes an implementation less robust?

Thanks,
Mircea.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Brunner [mailto:brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:37 AM
To: Pana, Mircea; IETF Policy (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Policy] ENUM property values

I normally is good practice to start enums with 1 (Most of the MIB
definition follow this practice). Normally, it makes implemetnations more
robust when starting with 1.

Marcus

--On Montag, 2. Dezember 2002 08:54 -0600 "Pana, Mircea"
<mpana <at> metasolv.com> wrote:

>
> Most ENUM property values in Policy documents use consecutive integers
> starting at 1. The integer value 0 (zero) is skipped. Was there a
> particular reason for this? Some implementers would prefer such values to
> start at 0.
>
> Thanks,
> Mircea.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: brunner <at> ccrle.nec.de
WWW: http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

headers

Girish Pujari | 4 Dec 2002 11:35

SimplePolicyCondition

The simplePolicyCondition contains an aggregation of PolicyVariable and PolicyValue.

I am trying to put this in LDAP schema and unable create an object of SimplePolicyObject.

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.61 NAME 'PolicyVariableAux'
SUP PolicyVariable AUXILIARY
)

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.62 NAME 'PolicyValueAux'
SUP PolicyValue AUXILIARY
)

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.510 NAME 'SimplePolicyCondition'
DESC 'Aux classes that can attach to
dlm1SupportAccessInstance.'
AUX ( PolicyVariableAux $ PolicyValueAux )
)

Can anyone suggest the proper class hierarchy ?

Thanx
Regards

Girish Pujari

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

headers

Pana, Mircea | 4 Dec 2002 15:42

RE: SimplePolicyCondition

There are many possible implementations. One of them might be:

[...]

attributetypes: ( valueDN-oid NAME 'valueDN'

SYNTAX '1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12' SINGLE-VALUE )

attributetypes: ( variableDN-oid NAME 'variableDN'

SYNTAX '1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.12' SINGLE-VALUE )

objectclasses: ( simpleCondition-oid NAME 'simpleCondition'

DESC 'Variable-Match-Value.'

SUP 'condition'

MUST ( ) MAY ( valueDN $ variableDN ) )

objectclasses: ( value-oid NAME 'value'

DESC 'Generic Policy Value.'

SUP 'top'

MUST ( ) MAY ( ) )

objectclasses: ( variable-oid NAME 'variable'

DESC 'Generic Policy Variable.'

SUP 'top'

MUST ( ) MAY ( ) )

[...]

-----Original Message-----
From: Girish Pujari [mailto:pujarig <at> mahindrabt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:55 AM
To: policy <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Policy] SimplePolicyCondition

The simplePolicyCondition contains an aggregation of PolicyVariable and PolicyValue.

I am trying to put this in LDAP schema and unable create an object of SimplePolicyObject.

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.61 NAME 'PolicyVariableAux'
SUP PolicyVariable AUXILIARY
)

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.62 NAME 'PolicyValueAux'
SUP PolicyValue AUXILIARY
)

objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.412.100.2.1.3.1.510 NAME 'SimplePolicyCondition'
DESC 'Aux classes that can attach to
dlm1SupportAccessInstance.'
AUX ( PolicyVariableAux $ PolicyValueAux )
)

Can anyone suggest the proper class hierarchy ?

Thanx
Regards

Girish Pujari

*********************************************************
Disclaimer

This message (including any attachments) contains
confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it,
is strictly prohibited.

*********************************************************
Visit us at http://www.mahindrabt.com

1	January 2007
3	December 2006
2	November 2006
1	October 2006
1	May 2006
1	July 2005
2	June 2005
1	February 2005
1	December 2004
2	November 2004
4	October 2004
3	August 2004
3	July 2004
18	June 2004
4	May 2004
4	April 2004
7	March 2004
14	February 2004
3	January 2004
1	November 2003
76	September 2003
11	August 2003
16	July 2003
13	June 2003
19	May 2003
29	April 2003
6	March 2003
3	February 2003
10	January 2003
23	December 2002
3	November 2002
6	October 2002
3	September 2002
8	August 2002
9	July 2002
9	June 2002
24	May 2002
2	April 2002

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31