Re: gpsPolicyGroup class in qos info model

[Marcus Brunner <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

John Strassner wrote:
> 
> PolicyRuleInPolicyRule is used to build sub-rules. We also
> allow for PolicyGroupInPolicyRule to build a sub-rule, with
> a policyGroup as a nested container. This capability is not
> in PCIM.
>

Do you have an example, motivating why the rule in the rule is useful?
Is there a specific application of this modeling for QPIM?
I personally do not like having a rule playing so many different role.
The containment is dealt with in the policy group, why should a policy
rule also be a container for sub-rules?
 
> As far as the context, sub-rules execute before their
> containing rules, as explained in the draft.
>

Thank you, I have not found this in the draft.
 
> I not only don't like conditions in gpsPolicyGroup, I don't
> think they work.
>

I do not like the as well.

Marcus
 
> regards,
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marcus Brunner" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ron Cohen" <ronc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Mahadevan Iyer" <iyermahadevan@xxxxxxxxx>;
> <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ipsec-policy@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 9:29 PM
> Subject: Re: gpsPolicyGroup class in qos info model
> 
> > Ron,
> >
> > I agree with Mahadevan, that I do not like the
> policyRuleInPolicyRule method,
> > because
> > a) there are now two different grouping models,
> > b) it is unclear what happens to the context when the
> ruleInrule is executed
> > (full new start of execution engine or reuse the context)
> > c) I do not see the need for rulesInrules, what makes them
> different compared to
> > the grouping already available
> >
> > However, I do not agree to add a condition to the group. I
> think what is
> > available is enough.
> >
> > Marcus
> >
> > Quoting Ron Cohen <ronc@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > > Mahadevan,
> > >
> > > Can you provide more details why you prefer to change
> the gpsPolicyGroup
> > > than using the current policyRuleInPolicyRule method?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Ron
> > >
> > >
> > > >I would like to suggest an update to the
> > > >gpsPolicyGroup class.
> > > >This also relates to the PolicyRuleInPolicyRule usage.
> > > >
> > > >I need to indicate that a group of policy rules should
> > > >be checked only if the traffic matches some aggregate
> > > >conditions. These aggregate conditions summarize the
> > > >conditions within the policy rules.
> > > >
> > > >I would like to specify the aggregate conditions at
> > > >the level of the gpsPolicyGroup. An alternative is to
> > > >use the PolicyRule + PolicyRuleInPolicyRule instead of
> > > >the gpsPolicyGroup. However I prefer to use the
> > > >gpsPolicyGroup.
> > > >
> > > >I would suggest adding an aggregate policy condition
> > > >to the gpsPolicyGroup. This condition would typically
> > > >be a gpsPolicyCompoundCondition.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Thanks
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________________________
> > > >Do You Yahoo!?
> > > >Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of
> Products.
> > > >http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Marcus Brunner
> > C&C Research Laboratories
> > NEC Europe Ltd.
> >
> > E-Mail: brunner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
> > personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner
> >
> > Adenauerplatz 6
> > D-69115 Heidelberg
> > Germany
> >
> > Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
> > Fax:   +49 (0)6221/ 9051155