[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-supa-generic-policy-info-model

Network Working Group                                     J. Strassner
Internet Draft                                     Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standard Track
Expires: November 09, 2015                               May 09, 2015


                  Generic Policy Information Model for
              Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA)
           draft-strassner-supa-generic-policy-info-model-01


Abstract

   The Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions (SUPA) addresses the
   needs of operators and application developers to represent
   multiple types of policy rules. This document defines a single
   common extensible framework for representing different types of
   policy rules, in the form of a set of information models, that is
   independent of language, protocol, repository, and the level of
   abstraction of the content of the policy rule. This enables a
   common set of concepts defined in this set of information models
   to be mapped into different data models that use different
   languages, protocols, and repositories to optimize their usage.
   The definition of common policy concepts also provides better
   interoperability by ensuring that each data model can share a set
   of common concepts, independent of its level of detail or the
   language, protocol, and/or repository that it is using.

   Specifically, this document defines three information models:

      1.  A framework for defining the concept of policy,
          independent of how policy is defined or used; this is
          called the SUPA Generic Policy Information Model (SGPIM)
      2.  A framework for defining a policy model that uses the
          event-condition-action paradigm; this is called the SUPA
          Eca Policy Rule Information Model (EPRIM)
      3.  A framework for defining a policy model that uses a
          declarative (e.g., intent-based) paradigm; this is called
          the SUPA Logic Statement Information Model (SLSIM)

   The combination of the SGPIM and the EPRIM, or the SGPIM and the
   SLSIM, provide an extensible framework for defining policy that
   uses an event-condition-action or declarative representation that
   is independent of data repository, data definition language, query
   language, implementation language, and protocol.











Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.
   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
   as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
   progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2015.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
   without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................. 7
   2. Conventions used in this document ............................ 7
   3. Terminology .................................................. 7
      3.1. Acronyms................................................. 7
      3.2. Definitions ............................................. 8




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

Table of Contents (continued)

         3.2.1. Core Terminology ................................... 8
            3.2.1.1. Information Model ............................. 8
            3.2.1.2. Data Model .................................... 9
            3.2.1.3. Container ..................................... 9
            3.2.1.4. PolicyContainer ............................... 9
         3.2.2. Policy Terminology ................................. 9
            3.2.2.1. SUPAPolicy ................................... 10
            3.2.2.2. SUPAPolicyStatement .......................... 10
            3.2.2.3. SUPAECAPolicyRule ............................ 11
            3.2.2.4. SUPALogicStatement ........................... 12
            3.2.2.5. SUPAMetadata ................................. 13
            3.2.2.6. SUPAPolicyTarget ............................. 13
            3.2.2.7. SUPAPolicySubject ............................ 13
         3.2.3. Modeling Terminology .............................. 14
            3.2.3.1. Inheritance .................................. 14
            3.2.3.2. Relationship ................................. 14
            3.2.3.3. Association .................................. 14
            3.2.3.4. Aggregation .................................. 14
            3.2.3.5. Composition .................................. 15
            3.2.3.6. Association Class ............................ 15
            3.2.3.7. Multiplicity ................................. 15
            3.2.3.8. Navigability ................................. 15
            3.2.3.9. Abstract Class ............................... 16
            3.2.3.10. Concrete Class .............................. 16
         3.2.4.  Mathematical Logic Terminology ................... 16
            3.2.4.1. Predicate .................................... 16
            3.2.4.2. Logic Operators .............................. 16
               3.2.4.2.1. Propositional Logic Connectives ......... 16
               3.2.4.2.2. First Order Logic Quantifiers ........... 17
            3.2.4.3. Propositional Logic .......................... 17
            3.2.4.4. First-Order Logic ............................ 17
      3.3. Symbology .............................................. 18
         3.3.1. Inheritance ....................................... 18
         3.3.2. Association ....................................... 18
         3.3.3. Aggregation ....................................... 18
         3.3.4. Composition ....................................... 19
         3.3.5. Association Class ................................. 19
         3.3.6. Logical Connectives ............................... 19
         3.3.7. Quantifiers ....................................... 19
   4. Policy Abstraction Architecture ............................. 20
      4.1. Motivation ............................................. 21
      4.2. SUPA Approach .......................................... 21
      4.3. SUPA Generic Policy Information Model Overview ......... 22
      4.4. Structure of SUPA Policies ............................. 24
         4.4.1. ECA Policy Rule Structure ......................... 24
         4.4.2. Logical Statement Structure ....................... 25
      4.5. SGPIM Assumptions ...................................... 27
      4.6. Scope of Previous Work ................................. 28


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

Table of Contents (continued)

   5. SGPIM Model ................................................. 29
      5.1. Overview ............................................... 29
      5.2. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicy" ........................ 29
         5.2.1. SUPAPolicy Attributes ............................. 31
            5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaObjectIDContent" .......... 31
            5.2.1.2. The Attribute "supaObjectIDFormat" ........... 31
            5.2.1.3. The Attribute "supaPolicyName" ............... 32
         5.2.2. SUPAPolicy Relationships .......................... 32
            5.2.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicies" ........... 32
            5.2.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicyDetail" .. 32
      5.3. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyAtomic" .................. 32
      5.4. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyComposite" ............... 33
         5.4.1. SUPAPolicyComposite Attributes .................... 33
            5.4.1.1. The Attribute "supaPCIsMatchAll" ............. 33
            5.4.1.2. The Attribute "supaPCFailureStrategy" ........ 34
         5.4.2. SUPAPolicyComposite Relationships ................. 34
            5.4.2.1. The Aggregation "HasSUPAECAPolicyRules" ...... 34
            5.4.2.2. The Association Class
                     "HasSUPAECAPolicyRulesDetail" ................ 34
      5.5. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyStatement" ............... 35
         5.5.1. SUPAPolicyStatement Attributes .................... 37
            5.5.1.1. The Attribute "supaPolicyStmtAdminStatus" .... 37
            5.5.1.2. The Attribute "supaPolicyStmtExecStatus" ..... 37
         5.5.2. SUPAPolicyStatement Subclasses .................... 38
            5.5.2.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAEncodedClause" ....... 38
               5.5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaClauseContent" ....... 38
               5.5.2.1.2. The Attribute "supaClauseFormat" ........ 39
               5.5.2.1.3. The Attribute "supaClauseResponse" ...... 39
         5.5.3. SUPAPolicyStatement Relationships ................. 39
            5.5.3.1. The Aggregation "HasSUPAPolicyStatements" .... 39
            5.5.3.2. The Association Class
                      "HasSUPAPolicyStmtDetail" ................... 39
      5.6. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicySubject" ................. 40
         5.6.1. SUPAPolicySubject Attributes ...................... 41
         5.6.2. SUPAPolicySubject Relationships ................... 41
            5.6.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicySubjects" ..... 41
            5.6.2.2. The Association Class
                      "HasSUPAPolicySubjDetail" ................... 41
      5.7. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyTarget" .................. 42
         5.7.1. SUPAPolicyTarget Attributes ....................... 42
            5.7.1.1. The Attribute "supaPolicyTargetEnabled" ...... 42
         5.7.2. SUPAPolicyTarget Relationships ....................
            5.7.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicyTargets" ...... 43
            5.7.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicyTgtDetail" 43
      5.8. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyTerm" .................... 43
         5.8.1. SUPAPolicyTerm Attributes ......................... 44
            5.8.1.1 The Attribute "supaPolTermExprContent" ........ 44
            5.8.1.2. The Attribute "supaPolTermExprFormat" ........ 44


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

Table of Contents (continued)

         5.8.2. SUPAPolicyTerm Relationships ...................... 45
            5.8.2.1. The Aggregation "SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt" ...... 45
            5.8.2.2. The Association Class
                     "SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail" ................ 45
         5.8.3. SUPAPolicyTerm Subclasses ......................... 45
            5.8.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyVariable" ...... 46
            5.8.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyOperator" ...... 46
               5.8.3.2.1. The Attribute "supaPolOpType" ........... 46
            5.8.3.3. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyValue" ......... 47
      5.9. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyMetadata" ................ 48
         5.9.1. SUPAPolicyMetadata Attributes ..................... 48
         5.9.2. SUPAPolicyMetadata Relationships .................. 48
   6. SUPA ECAPolicyRule Information Model ........................ 49
      6.1. Overview ............................................... 49
      6.2. Constructing a SUPAECAPolicyRule ....................... 50
      6.3. Working With SUPAECAPolicyRules ........................ 51
      6.4. The Concrete Class "SUPAECAPolicyRule" ................. 52
         6.4.1. SUPAECAPolicyRule Attributes ...................... 53
            6.4.1.1. The Attribute "supaECAPRDeployStatus"......... 53
            6.4.1.2. The Attribute "supaECAPRExecStatus"........... 53
         6.4.2. SUPAECAPolicyRule Relationships ................... 54
         6.4.3. SUPAECAPolicyRule Subclasses ...................... 54
            6.4.2.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic" . 54
            6.4.2.2. The Concrete Class
                     "SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite" ................. 54
      6.5. SUPAPolicyStatement Subclasses ......................... 55
         6.5.1. Designing SUPAPolicyStatements Using
                 SUPABooleanClauses ............................... 55
         6.5.2. The Abstract Class"SUPABooleanClause" ............. 56
            6.5.2.1. SUPABooleanClause Attributes ................. 57
               6.5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaBoolIsNegated" ....... 57
            6.5.2.2. SUPABooleanClause Relationships .............. 57
               6.5.2.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPABooleanClauses"  57
         6.5.3. SUPABooleanClause Subclasses ...................... 57
            6.5.3.1. The Abstract Class "SUPABooleanClauseAtomic" . 57
               6.5.3.1.1. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyVariable" . 58
                  6.5.3.1.1.1. Problems with the RFC3460 Version
                               of PolicyVariable .................. 59
                  6.5.3.1.1.2. The Abstract Class
                               "SUPAPolicyVariable" ............... 59
               6.5.3.1.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyOperator" . 59
               6.5.3.1.3. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyValue" .... 60
                  6.5.3.1.3.1. Problems with the RFC3460 Version
                               of PolicyValue ..................... 60
                  6.5.3.1.3.2. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyValue" 60
         6.5.4. The Abstract Class "SUPABooleanClauseComposite" ... 60
            6.5.4.1. SUPABooleanClauseComposite Attributes ........ 60
            6.5.4.2. SUPABooleanClauseComposite Relationships ..... 60


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

Table of Contents (continued)

      6.6. The Abstract Class "SUPAECAComponent" .................. 61
      6.7. The Abstract Class"SUPAEvent" .......................... 61
      6.8. The Abstract Class"SUPACondition" ...................... 61
      6.9. The Abstract Class"SUPAAction" ......................... 61
   7. SUPA Logic Statement Information Model ...................... 62
      7.1. Overview ............................................... 62
      7.2. Constructing a SUPAPLStatement ......................... 62
      7.3. Working With SUPAPLStatements .......................... 62
      7.4. The Abstract Class "SUPALogicClause" ................... 62
      7.5. The Abstract Class "SUPAPLStatement" ................... 62
         7.5.1. SUPAPLStatement Attributes ........................ 62
         7.5.2. SUPAPLStatement Relationships ..................... 62
         7.5.3. SUPAPLStatement Subclasses ........................ 62
         7.5.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAPLArgument" ............. 62
         7.5.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPLPremise" .............. 62
         7.5.3.3. The Concrete Class "SUPAPLConclusion" ........... 62
      7.6. Constructing a SUPAFOLStatement ........................ 63
      7.7. Working With SUPAFOLStatements ......................... 63
         7.7.1. SUPAFOLStatement Attributes ....................... 63
         7.7.2. SUPAFOLStatement Relationships .................... 63
         7.7.3. SUPAFOLStatement Subclasses ....................... 63
         7.7.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAGoalHead" ............... 63
         7.7.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAGoalBody" ............... 63
      7.8. Combining Different Types of SUPAFOLStatements ......... 63
   8. Examples .................................................... 63
      8.1. SUPAECAPolicyRule Examples ............................. 63
      8.2. SUPALogicStatement Examples ............................ 63
      8.3. Mixing SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements ...... 63
   9. Security Considerations  .................................... 63
   10. IANA Considerations ........................................ 63
   11. Acknowledgments ............................................ 64
   12. References ................................................. 64
      12.1. Normative References .................................. 64
      12.2. Informative References  ............................... 64
   Authors' Addresses ............................................. 65















Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


1. Introduction

   The Simplified Use Policy Abstractions (SUPA) addresses the needs
   of operators and application developers to represent multiple types
   of policy rules using a common structure for defining policy rules
   that is independent of language, protocol, repository, and the
   level of abstraction of the content of the policy rule. This common
   framework currently takes the form of a set of three information
   models. The SUPA Generic Policy Information Model (SGPIM) defines
   a common set of policy management concepts that are independent of
   the type of policy rule, while the SUPA ECA Policy Rule Information
   Model (EPRIM) and SUPA Logic Statement Information Model (SLSIM)
   define information models that are specific to the needs of
   Event-Condition-Action (ECA) policy rules and statements that are
   subsets of either Propositional Logic (PL) or First-Order Logic
   (FOL), respectively.


2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. In
   this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to
   be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.


3. Terminology

   This section defines acronyms, terms, and symbology used in the
   rest of this document.




3.1. Acronyms

   CLI        Command Line Interface
   CNF        Conjunctive Normal Form
   DNF        Disjunctive Normal Form
   ECA        Event-Condition-Action
   EPRIM      ECA Policy Rule Information Model
   FOL        First Order Logic
   NETCONF    Network Configuration protocol
   OAM&P      Operations, Administration, Management, and Provisioning
   OID        Object IDentifier




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   PAP        Policy Administration Point
   PDP        Policy Decision Point
   PEP        Policy Enforcement Point
   PIP        Policy Information Point
   PL         Propositional Logic
   PR         Policy Repository
   PXP        Policy Execution Point
   SGPIM      SUPA Generic Policy Information Model
   SLSIM      SUPA Logic Statement Information Model
   SUPA       Simplified Use of Policy Abstractions
   TMF        TeleManagent Forum (TM Forum)
   UML        Unified Modeling Language
   URI        Uniform Resource Identifier
   YANG       A data definition language for use with NETCONF
   ZOOM       Zero-touch Orchestration, Operations, and Management


3.2. Definitions

   This section defines the terminology that is used in this document.

3.2.1. Core Terminology

   The following subsections define the terms "information model" and
   "data model".

3.2.1.1. Information Model

   An information model is a representation of concepts of interest
   to an environment in a form that is independent of data repository,
   data definition language, query language, implementation language,
   and protocol.

   Note: this definition is different than that of [RFC3198]. An
   information model is defined in [RFC3198] as: "An abstraction and
   representation of the entities in a managed environment, their
   properties, attributes, and operations, and the way that they
   relate to each other. It is independent of any specific repository,
   software usage, protocol, or platform." The SUPA definition is
   more specific, and corrects the following ambiguities:

      o Most information models do not define operations; this is
        typically implementation-specific and a function of (at least)
        the language, protocol, and data repository used.
      o It is unclear what the difference is between the terms
        "properties" and "attributes" (these are typically synonyms in
        modeling terminology)
      o It is unclear what is meant by "software usage".
      o It is unclear what is meant by "platform".


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.1.2. Data Model

   A data model is a representation of concepts of interest to an
   environment in a form that is dependent on data repository, data
   definition language, query language, implementation language, and
   protocol (typically, but not necessarily, all three).

   Note: this definition is different than that of [RFC3198]. A data
   model is defined in [RFC3198] as: "A mapping of the contents of an
   information model into a form that is specific to a particular type
   of data store or repository." The SUPA definition is more specific.
   For example, it takes into account differences between two
   implementations that use the same protocol, implementation
   language, and data repository, but which have different data
   definition and/or query protocols.

3.2.1.3. Container

   A container is an object whose instances may contain zero or more
   additional objects, including container objects. A container
   provides storage, query, and retrieval of its contained objects
   in a well-known, organized way.

3.2.1.4. PolicyContainer

   In this document, a PolicyContainer is a special type of container
   that provides at least the following three functions:

      1.  It uses metadata to define how its content is interpreted
      2.  It separates the content of the policy from the
          representation of the policy
      3.  It provides a convenient control point for OAMP operations

   The combination of these three functions enables a PolicyContainer
   to define the behavior of how its constituent components will be
   accessed, queried, stored, retrieved, and how they operate.


3.2.2. Policy Terminology

   The following terms define different policy concepts used in the
   SUPA Generic Policy Information Model (SGPIM). Note that the
   prefix "SUPA" is used for all classes and relationships defined
   in the SGPIM to ensure name uniqueness. Similarly, the prefix
   "supa" is defined for all SUPA class attributes.






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015           [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.2.1. SUPAPolicy

   A SUPAPolicy is an abstract class that is a type of
   PolicyContainer.

   SUPAPolicy is defined generically as a means to monitor and control
   the changing and/or maintaining of the state of one or more managed
   objects [1]. In this context, "manage" means that at least create,
   read, query, update, and delete unctions are supported.

   A SUPAPolicy MUST have at least one SUPAPolicyStatement that are
   used to define the content of the policy. A SUPAPolicy MAY be
   qualified (i.e., may aggregate these objects to more completely
   specify the behavior of the SUPAPolicy) by a set of zero or more
   SUPAPolicySubjects, SUPAPolicyTargets, and/or SUPAPolicyMetadata
   objects. Note that these three classes are defined as abstract, in
   order to simplify mapping to, and optimization of, data models.
   When defined in an information model, the SUPAPolicy class MUST
   have separate aggregation relationships with the SUPAPolicySubject,
   SUPAPolicyTarget, and SUPAPolicyMetadata classes. When implemented
   in a data model, the set of SUPAPolicyStatement, SUPAPolicyTarget,
   SUPAPolicySubject, and SUPAPolicyMetadata object instances, SHOULD
   all be part of a single PolicyContainer object.


3.2.2.2. SUPAPolicyStatement

   A SUPAPolicyStatement is an abstract class that contains an
   individual or group of related functions; this set of functions
   defines a set of actions to take. Examples of actions include
   getting information, stating facts about the system being managed,
   writing a change to a configuration of one or more managed objects,
   and querying information about one or more managed objects.

   SUPAPolicyStatements are objects in their own right, which
   facilitates their reuse. SUPAPolicyStatements can also be combined
   in a whole-part (containment) relationship under a SUPAPolicy,
   thereby forming a SUPAECAPolicyRule or a SUPALogicStatement. When
   defined in an information model, a SUPAPolicyStatement MUST be
   represented as a separate object that aggregates its constituent
   components. However, a data model MAY map this definition to a
   more efficient form (e.g., flattening the SUPAPolicyStatement and
   its aggregated object instances into a single object instance).








Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.2.3. SUPAECAPolicyRule

   An Event-Condition-Action (ECA) Policy (SUPAECAPolicyRule) is an
   abstract class that MUST contain at least one SUPAPolicyStatement.
   Optionally, it MAY contain one or more SUPAPolicySubjects, one or
   more SUPAPolicyTargets, and one or more SUPAPolicyMetadata objects.

   The SUPAPolicyStatement defines the content of the Policy Rule as
   a three-tuple, consisting of an event clause, a condition clause,
   and an action clause. Each of these three clauses MUST have at
   least one term corresponding to the type of clause that it is; it
   MAY have more than one.

   These three terms collectively specify what triggers the evaluation
   of the SUPAECAPolicyRule, whether all of the conditions specified
   have been satisfied or not, and if the conditions are satisfied,
   the set of actions to be executed. This differentiates a
   SUPAECAPolicyRule from a SUPALogicStatement, which specifies what
   actions to perform, but not how to perform them.

   If there are more than one term, then these terms MUST be combined
   using any combination of logical AND, OR, and NOT operators to
   form a Boolean clause (i.e., a clause whose value is either TRUE
   or FALSE). For example, a valid event clause could be: "three
   events of type A AND NOT an event of type B".

   These three clauses enable the semantics of a SUPAECAPolicyRule
   to be clearly differentiated from the semantics of other types of
   SUPAPolicies that use SUPAPolicyStatements (and other parts of
   the SPGIM), such as SUPALogicStatements.

   The semantics of a SUPAECAPolicyRule are defined as follows:

      o The event clause defines a Boolean statement that, if true,
        MUST trigger the evaluation of the condition clause of the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule.
      o The condition clause defines a Boolean statement that, if
        true, MUST start the execution of the actions of the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule.
      o The action clause is an aggregation of actions that MUST be
        executed if the event and condition clauses so dictate.
      o A SUPAECAPolicyRule MAY specify a set of SUPAPolicySubjects
        that have authored the SUPAECAPolicyRule.
      o A SUPAECAPolicyRule MAY specify a set of SUPAPolicyTargets
        that define a set of managed objects that the actions of the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule MAY monitor and/or change their state.
      o The behavior of the event, condition, and action clauses MAY
        be specified using one or more SUPAMetadata objects that have
        been aggregated by the SUPAECAPolicyRule.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   When defined in an information model, each of the event, condition,
   and action clauses MUST be represented as an aggregation between a
   SUPAECAPolicyRule (the aggregate) and a set of event, condition, or
   action objects (the components). However, a data model MAY map
   these definitions to a more efficient form (e.g., by flattening
   these three types of object instances, along with their respective
   aggregations, into a single object instance).


3.2.2.4. SUPALogicStatement

   A SUPALogicStatement is an abstract class that MUST contain at
   least one SUPAPolicyStatement. A SUPALogicStatement defines what
   actions to take, but not how to execute those actions. This
   differentiates it from a SUPAECAPolicyRule, which explicitly
   defines what triggers the evaluation of the SUPAECAPolicyRule,
   what conditions must be satisfied in order to execute the actions
   of the SUPAECAPolicyRule, and what actions to execute. A
   SUPALogicStatement is commonly called declarative, or intent-based,
   policy.

   This document defines two forms of a SUPALogicStatements. The first
   uses Propositional Logic (PL, see Section 3.2.4.2), while the
   second uses First-Order Logic (FOL, see Section 3.2.4.3).

   Note that this document does not refer to a SUPALogicStatement as
   a "rule", since both types of SUPALogicStatements defined in this
   document are technically not "rules". Rather, they are types of
   zero-order and first-order logic statements.

   If the SUPALogicStatement is expressed in PL, then it MUST consist
   of only the propositional connectives (i.e., negation, conjunction,
   disjunction, implication, and bi-implication (see Section 3.2.4.1).
   Furthermore, statements in a PL are limited to simple declarative
   propositions that MUST NOT use quantified variable or predicates.

   If the SUPALogicStatement is expressed in FOL, then it MUST consist
   of a set of logical predicates (i.e., a Boolean-valued function).
   The predicate can use all propositional connectives as well as two
   additional quantifiers (i.e., the universal quantifier and the
   existential quantifier).

   A logical predicate MUST consist of a head clause, and MAY also
   contain a body clause. This enables the semantics of a
   SUPALogicStatement to be clearly differentiated from the semantics
   of other types of SUPAPolicies that use SUPAPolicyStatements (and
   other parts of the SPGIM), such as SUPAECAPolicyRules. While in
   principle higher order logics can be defined, this document is
   limited to defining a SUPALogicStatement using either PL or FOL.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   When implemented in an information model, each PL or FOL statement
   MUST be defined as objects (i.e., a subclass of the
   SUPALogicStatement class; see Section 7). When an FOL statement is
   implemented in an information model, both the head and body clauses
   MUST be defined as objects (or sets of objects). However, a data
   model MAY map either a PL statement or an FOL statement to a more
   efficient form (e.g., by flattening the head and body objects into
   a single object).


3.2.2.5. SUPAMetadata

   Metadata is, literally, data about data. SUPAMetadata is an
   abstract class that contains prescriptive and/or descriptive
   information about the object(s) that it is attached to. While
   metadata can be attached to any information model element, this
   document only considers metadata attached to classes and
   relationships.

   When defined in an information model, each instance of the
   SUPAMetadata class MUST have its own aggregation relationship
   with the set of objects that it applies to. However, a data model
   MAY map these definitions to a more efficient form (e.g.,
   flattening the object instances into a single object instance).


3.2.2.6. SUPAPolicyTarget

   SUPAPolicyTarget is an abstract class that defines a set of
   managed objects that may be affected by the actions of a
   SUPAPolicyStatement. A SUPAPolicyTarget may use one or more
   mechanisms to identify the set of managed objects that it
   affects; examples include OIDs and URIs.

   When defined in an information model, each instance of the
   SUPAPolicyTarget class MUST have its own aggregation
   relationship with each SUPAPolicy that uses it. However, a
   data model MAY map these definitions to a more efficient form
   (e.g., flattening the SUPAPolicyTarget, SUPAMetadata, and
   SUPAPolicy object instances into a single object instance).

3.2.2.7. SUPAPolicySubject

   SUPAPolicySubject is an abstract class that defines a set of
   managed objects that authored this SUPAPolicyStatement. This is
   required for auditability. A SUPAPolicySubject may use one or more
   mechanisms to identify the set of managed objects that authored it;
   examples include OIDs and URIs.



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   When defined in an information model, each instance of the
   SUPAPolicySubject class MUST have its own aggregation relationship
   with each Policy that uses it. However, a data model MAY map these
   definitions to a more efficient form (e.g., flattening the
   PolicySubject, Metadata, and Policy object instances into a single
   object instance).


3.2.3. Modeling Terminology

   The following terms define different types of relationships used
   in the information models of the SUPA Generic Policy Information
   Model (SGPIM).

3.2.3.1. Inheritance

   Inheritance makes an entity at a lower level of abstraction (e.g.,
   the subclass) a type of an entity at a higher level of abstraction
   (e.g., the superclass). A subclass does NOT change the
   characteristics or behavior of the superclass that it inherits
   from. However, a subclass MAY add new attributes and relationships
   that distinguish it from the attributes and relationships defined
   by its superclass.

3.2.3.2. Relationship

   A relationship is a generic term that represents how a first set
   of entities interact with a second set of entities. A recursive
   relationship sets the first and second entity to the same entity.
   There are three basic types of relationships, as defined in the
   subsections below: associations, aggregations, and compositions.

3.2.3.3. Association

   An association represents a generic dependency between a first
   and a second set of entities.

3.2.3.4. Aggregation

   An aggregation is a stronger type (i.e., more restricted
   semantically) of association, and represents a whole-part
   dependency between a first and a second set of entities. Three
   objects are defined by an aggregation: the first entity, the second
   entity, and a new third entity that represents the combination of
   the first and second entities. The entity owning the aggregation is
   referred to as the "aggregate", and the entity that is aggregated is
   referred to as the "part".




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.3.5. Composition

   A composition is a stronger type (i.e., more restricted
   semantically) of aggregation, and represents a whole-part
   dependency with two important behaviors. First, an instance of the
   part is included in at most one instance of the aggregate at a
   time. Second, any action performed on the composite entity (i.e.,
   the aggregate) is propagated to its constituent part objects. For
   example, if the composite entity is deleted, then all of its
   constituent part entities are also deleted. This is not true of
   aggregations or associations - in both, only the entity being
   deleted is actually removed, and the other entities are unaffected.

3.2.3.6. Association Class

   A relationship may be implemented as an association class. This is
   used to define the relationship as having its own set of features.

   More specifically, if the relationship is implemented as an
   association class, then the attributes of the association class, as
   well as other relationships that the association class participates
   in, may be used to define the semantics of the relationship.

   If the relationship is not implemented as an association class, then
   no additional semantics (beyond those defined by the type of the
   relationship) are expressed by the relationship.

3.2.3.7. Multiplicity

   A specification of the range of allowable cardinalities that a set
   of entities may assume. This is always a pair of ranges, such as
   1 - 1 or 0..n - 2..5.

3.2.3.8. Navigability

   A relationship may have a restriction on the ability of an object
   at one end of the relationship to access the object at the other
   end of the relationship. In this document, two choices are possible:

      1.  Each object is navigable by the other, which is indicated
          by NOT providing any additional symbology, or
      2.  An object A can navigate to object B, but object B cannot
          navigate to object A. This is indicated by an open-headed
          arrow pointing to the object that cannot navigate to the
          other object. In this example, the arrow would be pointing
          at object B.





Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.3.9. Abstract Class

   An abstract class is a class that cannot be directly instantiated.


3.2.3.10. Concrete Class

   A concrete class is a class that can be directly instantiated.


3.2.4.  Mathematical Logic Terminology

   This section defines terminology for mathematical logic.

3.2.4.1. Predicate

   A predicate is a Boolean-valued function (i.e., a function whose
   values are interpreted as either TRUE or FALSE, depending on the
   values of its variables).

3.2.4.2. Logic Operators

   A logical connective is a symbol or word that defines how to
   connect two or more sentences in a language.

3.2.4.2.1. Propositional Logic Connectives

   There are five propositional logic connectives, defined as follows:

     o Negation, or a logical NOT operator, is an operation that,
       when applied to a proposition, produces a new proposition
       "not p", which has the opposite truth value of p.
     o Conjunction, or a logical AND operator, is an operation on two
       logical values that produces a value of TRUE if and only if
       both of its operands are TRUE.
     o Disjunction, or a logical OR operator, is an operation on two
       logical values that produces a value of FALSE if and only if
       both of its operands are FALSE.
     o Implication, or the conditional operator, is used to form
       statements of the form "if <proposition A> is TRUE, then
       <proposition B> is also TRUE (i.e., this statement is FALSE
       only when A is TRUE and B is FALSE).
     o Bi-implication, or the bi-conditional operator, is used to
       form statements of the form "<proposition A> is TRUE if and
       only if <proposition B> is TRUE (i.e., this statement is TRUE
       if and only if both propositions are FALSE or if both
       propositions are TRUE).




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.2.4.2.2. First Order Logic Quantifiers

   Quantification specifies the number of objects that satisfies a
   formula. This document uses two such quantifiers, which are
   defined as follows:

     o Universal quantification asserts that a predicate within the
       scope of this operator is TRUE of every value of a variable of
       the predicate. It is commonly interpreted as "for all".
     o Existential quantification asserts that a predicate within the
       scope of this operator is TRUE for at least one value of a
       variable of the predicate. It is commonly interpreted as
       "there exists, "there is at least one", or "for some".


3.2.4.3. Propositional Logic

   Propositional Logic (PL) may be simply defined as a language
   consisting of a set of statements; the value of each statement is
   either TRUE or FALSE. More formally, a (propositional) Argument
   consists of a sequence of Premises and a Conclusion. An Argument is
   valid if the Conclusion is TRUE whenever all Premises are TRUE.

   PL may be thought of as a set of declarative propositions.


3.2.4.4. First-Order Logic

   First-Order Logic (FOL) may be simply defined as a language
   consisting of a set of statements; each statement is a predicate.

   A predicate is a Boolean-valued function (i.e., the value of the
   function evaluates to either TRUE or FALSE, depending on the value
   of its variables). Predicates can also be compared.

   FOL uses quantified variables. The universal quantifier and/or the
   existential quantifier can be used to define what values can be
   instantiated by the predicated variables.













Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 17]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


3.3. Symbology

   The following symbology is used in this document:

3.3.1. Inheritance

   Inheritance: a subclass inherits the attributes and relationships
                of its superclass, as shown below:

                        +------------+
                        | Superclass |
                        +------+-----+
                              / \
                               I
                               I
                               I
                        +------+-----+
                        |  Subclass  |
                        +------------+

3.3.2. Association

   Association: Class B depends on Class A, as shown below:

                                        +---------+      +---------+
        +---------+      +---------+    |         |     \|         |
        | Class A |------| Class B |    | Class A |------| Class B |
        +---------+      +---------+    |         |     /|         |
                                        +---------+      +---------+

           association with no                association with
         navigability restrictions        navigability restrictions


3.3.3. Aggregation

   Aggregation: Class B is the part, Class A is the aggregate,
                as shown below:

       +---------+                    +---------+         +---------+
       |         |/ \   +---------+   |         |/ \     \|         |
       | Class A | A ---| Class B |   | Class A | A ------| Class B |
       |         |\ /   +---------+   |         |\ /     /|         |
       +---------+                    +---------+         +---------+

           aggregation with no                aggregation with
         navigability restrictions        navigability restrictions




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 18]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

3.3.4. Composition

   Composition: Class B is the part, Class A is the composite,
                as shown below:

       +---------+                    +---------+         +---------+
       |         |/ \   +---------+   |         |/ \     \|         |
       | Class A | C ---| Class B |   | Class A | C ------| Class B |
       |         |\ /   +---------+   |         |\ /     /|         |
       +---------+                    +---------+         +---------+

            composition with no                composition with
         navigability restrictions        navigability restrictions

3.3.5. Association Class

   Association Class: Class C is the association class implementing
                      the relationship D between classes A and B

                        +---------+          +---------+
                        | Class A |----+-----| Class B |
                        +---------+    ^     +---------+
                                       |
                                       |
                            +----------+----------+
                            | Association Class C |
                            +---------------------+

3.3.6. Logical Connectives

   The following defines a mapping between the typical mathematical
   symbols used for logical connectives (most of which are in
   extended ASCII) and the symbols that will be used in this document.

      Connective       ASCII CODE   UNICODE Code  Meaning
      Negation         172          U+00AC        "NOT"
      Conjunction      8743         U+2227        "AND"
      Disjunction      8744         U+2228        "OR"
      Implication      8658         U+21D2        "IMPLIES"
      Bi-implication   8660         U+21D4        "IF AND ONLY IF"

3.3.7. Quantifiers

   The following defines a mapping between the typical mathematical
   symbols used for quantifiers and the symbols that will be used in
   this document.

      Quantifier      ASCII Code   Unicode Code   Symbol Used
      Universal       8704         U+2200         "FOR ALL"
      Existential     8707         U+2203         "THERE EXISTS"


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 19]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


4. Policy Abstraction Architecture

   This section describes the motivation for the policy abstractions
   that are used in SUPA. In summary, the following abstractions are
   provided:

      o The SGPIM defines a technology-neutral information model that
        can express the concept of Policy.
      o This version of this document restricts the expression of
        Policy to either an event-condition-action tuple, a FOL
        predicate, or a combination of these statements.
      o Since these two representations are very different in syntax
        and content, the content of a Policy is abstracted from its
        representation:
          o Both SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements are types
            of SUPAPolicies
          o Both SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements are
            constructed from SUPAPolicyStatements
          o The syntax of a SUPAECAPolicyRule, and hence its
            representation, is different from that of a
            SUPALogicStatement
          o A SUPAPolicy MAY use SUPAECAPolicyRules and/or
            SUPALogicStatements
          o A SUPAPolicy consists of one or more SUPAPolicyStatements,
            and optionally may specify one or more SUPAPolicyTarget,
            SUPAPolicySubject, and SUPAPolicyMetadata objects
      o A SUPAPolicy MUST contain at least one SUPAPolicyStatement;
        it MAY contain more than one.
      o A SUPAECAPolicyRule defines the set of events and conditions
        that are responsible for executing its actions; it MUST have
        an event clause, a condition clause, and an action clause.
      o A SUPALogicStatement expresses facts that it believes to be
        true without defining how those facts are computed, and
        provides an efficient query mechanism for retrieving facts.
        Each SUPAPolicyStatement MUST be expressed as a function-free
        Horn clause; there are a number of additional restrictions
        that are covered in Section 7.
      o SUPAMetadata MAY be defined for any type of
        SUPAPolicyStatement (as well as for individual objects that
        make up a SUPAPolicyStatement).
      o SUPAMetadata MAY be prescriptive and/or descriptive in nature.
      o A SUPAPolicyTarget is a set of managed objects that the
        actions of the SUPAPolicy are applied to.
      o A SUPAPolicySubject is a set of managed objects that authored
        the SUPAPolicy.






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 20]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


4.1. Motivation

   The power of policy management is its applicability to many
   different types of systems. There are many different actors that
   can use a policy management system, including end-users, operators,
   application developers, and administrators. Each of these
   constituencies have different concepts and skills, and use
   different terminology. For example, an operator may want to express
   an operational rule that states that only Platinum and Gold users
   can use streaming multimedia applications. As a second example, a
   network administrator may want to define a more concrete policy
   rule that looks at the number of dropped packets and, if that
   number exceeds a programmable threshold, changes the queuing and
   dropping algorithms used.

   Both of these examples are commonly referred to as "policy rules",
   but they take very different forms, since they are at very
   different levels of abstraction and likely authored by different
   actors. The first was very abstract, and did not contain any
   technology-specific terms, while the second was more concrete, and
   likely used technical terms of a general (e.g., IP address range,
   port numbers) as well as a vendor-specific nature (e.g., specific
   algorithms implemented in a particular device).

   Note that these two policy rules could affect each other. For
   example, Gold and Platinum users might need different device
   configurations to give the proper QoS markings to their streaming
   multimedia traffic. This is very difficult to do if a common
   policy model does not exist.

   More importantly, the users of these two policies likely have
   different job responsibilities. They may have no idea of the
   concepts used in each policy. Yet, their policies need to interact
   in order for the business to provide the desired service. Hence,
   the need for a common policy framework.

4.2. SUPA Approach

   The purpose of the SUPA Generic Policy Information Model (SGPIM)
   is to define a common framework for expressing policies at
   different levels of abstraction. SUPA uses the SGPIM as a common
   vocabulary for representing concepts that are common to expressing
   policy, but which are independent of language, protocol,
   repository, and level of abstraction. This enables different
   policies at different levels of abstraction to form a continuum,
   where more abstract policies can be translated into more concrete
   policies, and vice-versa.




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 21]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

   It may be necessary to translate the form of a PolicyRule from a
   general to a more specific form (while keeping the abstraction
   level the same). For example, the declarative policy "Every
   network attached to a VM must be a private network owned by
   someone in the same group as the owner of the VM" may be
   translated to more formal form (e.g., Datalog, or the Congress
   version of Datalog). It may also be necessary to translate a
   Policy to a different level of abstraction. For example, the
   previous Policy may need to be translated to a form that network
   devices understand. A common framework for expressing policies
   that is independent of the level of abstraction is required in
   order to form such a continuum.


4.3. SUPA Generic Policy Information Model Overview

   Figure 1 illustrates the approach for representing policy rules
   in SUPA. The top two layers are defined in this document; the
   bottom layer (Data Models) are defined in separate documents.

           +-----------------------------------------------+
           | SUPA Generic Policy Information Model (SGPIM) |
           +-----------------------------------------------+
                                 / \
                                  |
                                  |
                    +-------------+------------+
                    |                          |
                    |                          |
    +---------------+-----------+  +-----------+---------------+
    |    SUPAECAPolicyRule      |  |   SUPA Logic Statement    |
    | Information Model (EPRIM) |  | Information Model (SLSIM) |
    +---------------------------+  +---------------------------+
               / \                              / \
                |                                |
                |                                |
    +-----------+-----------+        +-----------+------------+
    |     ECAPolicyRule     |        |    Logic Statement     |
    |       Data Model      |        |       Data Model       |
    +-----------------------+        +------------------------+

          Figure 1: Overview of SUPA Policy Rule Abstractions

   Conceptually, the SGPIM defines a set of objects that define the
   key elements of a Policy independent of how it is represented or
   its content. As will be shown, there is a significant difference
   between SUPAECAPolicyRules (see Section 6) and SUPALogicStatements
   (see Section 7). In principle, other types of SUPAPolicies could
   be defined, but the current charter is restricted to using these
   two types of SUPAPolicies as exemplars.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 22]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   The SGPIM defines the following concepts:

     o SUPAPolicy:          the root of the SPGIM model
     o SUPAPolicyAtomic:    a Policy that can be used in a stand-alone
                            manner
     o SUPAPolicyComposite: used to build hierarchies of Policies
     o SUPAPolicyStatement: used to define the content of a SUPAPolicy
     o SUPAPolicyTerm:      used to define variables, operators, and
                            values in a SUPAPolicyStatement
     o SUPAPolicySubject:   the author of a SUPAPolicy
     o SUPAPolicyTarget:    the managed object that a SUPAPolicy
                            monitors and/or controls the state of
     o SUPAPolicyMetadata:  specifies descriptive and/or prescriptive
                            information about a SUPAPolicy object

   A SUPAPolicy object serves as a single root of the SUPA system
   (i.e., all other classes in the model are subclasses of the
   SUPAPolicy class). This simplifes code generation and reusability.
   Note that this is NOT true of either [4] or [6].

   SUPA Policies are defined as either a stand-alone or a hierarchy
   of PolicyContainers. A PolicyContainer specifies the structure,
   content, and optionally, subject, target, and metadata information
   for the Policy.

   A SUPAPolicy takes one of two forms: (1) an ECA Policy, and/or
   (2) a declarative set of statements. Note that unlike other
   approaches (except [2] and [5], these two different types of
   Policies may be combined.

   Both a SUPAECAPolicyRule and a SUPALogicalStatement are made up of
   one or more SUPAPolicyStatements, which define the content of the
   Policy. Three types of SUPAPolicyStatements are available; one is
   generic, and can be used by any type of Policy, while the other
   two are specific to an ECA or a declarative Policy, respectively.

   A SUPAPolicyStatement may be made up of SUPAPolicyTerms. In
   addition, specific objects for constructing ECA Policies and
   declarative Policies are also provided.

   This set of classes enables each different types of Policies to be
   defined by an information model that refines the generic concepts
   of the SGPIM as described above. For example, a SUPAECAPolicyRule,
   as well as a SUPALogicStatement, are both subclasses of the
   SUPAPolicyAtomic class. Therefore, both can be used as part of a
   hierarchy of Policies or in a stand-alone manner. As another
   examples, a SUPALogicClause and a SUPABooleanClause are both
   subclasses of SUPAPolicyStatement, and are used to create
   SUPALogicStatements and SUPAECAPolicyRules, respectively.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 23]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


4.4. Structure of SUPA Policies

   This section describes the overall design of the SGPIM.

4.4.1. ECA Policy Rule Structure

   A SUPAECAPolicyRule is a statement that consists of an event
   clause, a condition clause, and an action clause. This type of
   Policy explicitly defines the current and desired states of the
   system being managed. It may be represented as follows:


      +------------------+            +---------------------+
      | SUPAPolicyAtomic |            | SUPAPolicyStatement |
      +------------------+            +---------------------+
               / \                              / \
                I                                I
                I                                I
                I                                I
                I               +----------------+------------------+
   +------------+------------+  |       SUPABooleanClause or        |
   |    SUPAECAPolicyRule    |  |         SUPAEncodedClause         |
   +-------------------------+  +-----------------------------------+
     0..1/ \ 0..1/ \ 0..1/ \          / \         / \         / \
          A       A       A            I           I           I
         \ /     \ /     \ /           I           I           I
          |       |       |       +----+---+       I           I
          |       |       |       |  Event |       I           I
          |       |       |       | Clause | +-----+-----+     I
          |       |       |       +--------+ | Condition |     I
          |       |       |         1..n/ \  |   Clause  | +---+----+
          |       |       |              |   +-----------+ | Action |
          |       |       |              |      1..n/ \    | Clause |
          |       |       |              |           |     +--------+
          |       |       |              |           |      1..n/ \
          |       |       +--------------+           |           |
          |       |        HasSUPAEvents             |           |
          |       |                                  |           |
          |       +----------------------------------+           |
          |                   HasSUPAConditions                  |
          |                                                      |
          +------------------------------------------------------+
                                  HasSUPAActions


          Figure 2: Overview of SUPA Policy Rule Abstractions





Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 24]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


4.4.2. Logical Statement Structure

   A SUPALogicStatement is either a set of PL or FOL statements.

   A SUPAPLStatement is a set of propositions that form a (single)
   conclusion. A proposition is either TRUE or FALSE. A proposition
   be created from simpler propositions combined using Propositional
   Logic Connectives (see Section Propositions (see Section
   3.2.4.2.1.). It may be conceptualized as follows:

                     +---------------------+
                     | SUPAPLogicStatement |
                     +---------------------+
                                / \
                                 I
                                 I
                                 I
                        +-----------------+
                        | SUPAPLStatement |
                        +-----------------+
                                / \
                                 I
                                 I
              +------------------+--+--------------------+
              I                     I                    I
              I                     I                    I
              I                     I                    I
      +-------+-------+   +---------+--------+  +--------+-------+
      | SUPAPLPremise |   | SUPAPLConclusion |  | SUPAPLArgument |
      +---------------+   +------------------+  +----------------+
          1..n / \                1 / \          0..1/ \  0..1/ \
                |                    |                A        A
                |                    |                |        |
                |                    |                |        |
                |                    +----------------+        |
                |                   HasSUPAPLConclusion        |
                |                                              |
                +----------------------------------------------+
                               HasSUPAPLPremises


     Figure 3: Overview of SUPA Propositional Logic Abstractions

   As shown in Figure 3, a SUPAPLArgument consists of a set of one
   or more SUPAPLPremises and a single SUPAPLConclusion. The
   multiplicity of the two aggregations is 0..1 on the aggregate
   side to enable SUPAPLPremises and SUPAPLConclusions to be created
   and stored indepedent of being used in a SUPAPLArgument.



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 25]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

   In PL, each possible atomic fact requires a separate propositional
   symbol. This can lead to a large amount of premises required to
   form a conclusion.

   FOL provides a richer knowledge representation by using:

      o objects (i.e., terms), which define individual entities
      o properties (i.e., unary predicates on terms), which
        distinguishes objects from each other
      o relations (i.e., n-ary predicates on terms), which define
        facts among a set of objects, and
      o functions (i.e., the mapping from one set of terms to another
        set of terms).

   FOL may be conceptualized as follows:

                        +---------------------+
                        | SUPAPLogicStatement |
                        +---------------------+
                                   / \
                                    I
                                    I
                                    I
                          +------------------+
                          | SUPAFOLStatement |
                          +------------------+
                                   / \
                                    I
                                    I
                     +--------------+------------+
                     I                           I
                     I                           I
                     I                           I
             +-------+------+            +-------+------+
             | SUPAGoalBody |            | SUPAGoalHead |
             +--------------+            +--------------+
                 1..n / \                   0..1/ \
                       |                         A
                       |                         |
                       |                         |
                       +-------------------------+
                           HasSUPAGoalBody


      Figure 4: Overview of SUPA First Order Logic Abstractions







Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 26]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   FOL Syntax may be described using the following grammar:

      Sentence
        : AtomicSentence
        | Sentence Connective Sentence
        | (Quantifier Variable)+ Sentence
        | 'NOT' Sentence
        | function '(' Sentence ')'
        ;


4.5. SGPIM Assumptions

   Most policy models (e.g., [2], [4], and [6]) are built as part of
   an overarching model. SUPA DOES NOT assume that it is the "root
   class of everything". Rather, the SUPA information model is built
   as a single inheritance model fragment to accommodate inserting the
   SUPA model into another model (e.g., the root of the SUPA model
   becomes a subclass of the other model). This is shown in Figure 5.


             +------------------------------------------+
             |     Root Class of an Existing Model      |
             +------------------------------------------+
                                 / \
                                  I
                                  I
                +-----------------+--------------+
                I                                I
                I                                I
    +-----------+-----------+        +-----------+------------+
    |    A Subclass of the  |        |    A Subclass of the   |
    |     Existing Model    |        |      Existing Model    |
    +-----------------------+        +------------------------+
                                                / \
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                ...
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                     +-----------+------------+
                                     |  SUPA Class Hierarchy  |
                                     |   (SGPIM plus EPRIM    |
                                     |      and/or SLSIM)     |
                                     +------------------------+

          Figure 5: Integrating SUPA into an Existing Model




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 27]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


4.6. Scope of Previous Work

   Insert intro paragraph and reference SUPA Gap Analysis [6]. Some
   salient points on previous policy models:

      o [RFC3060] and [RFC3460] only define a policy rule that
        consists of a condition clause and an action clause; it does
        not define an ECA policy rule, nor does it define a
        LogicStatement
      o [4] is more elaborate than [RFC3060] and [RFC3460], but
        suffers from the same limitations
      o [5] defines four types of policies (i.e., ECA, Goal,
        UtilityFunction, and Promise), but does not have the detail
        defined in this document

   Rest to be finished. Sections will include:

      o Description of, and problems with, [RFC3060]
      o Description of, and problems with, [RFC3460]
      o Should this section also talk about CIM or SID? I personally
        think that this should be in the gap analysis...






























Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 28]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5. SGPIM Model
   This section defines the classes and relationships of the SGPIM.

5.1. Overview
   The overall class definition is shown in Figure 6. SUPAPolicy is
   the root of the SUPA class hierarchy. For implementations, it is
   assumed that SUPAPolicy is subclassed from a class from another
   model. In Figure 6, indentation represents subclassing.


   (Class of another model that SUPA is integrating into)
       |
       +---SUPAPolicy (see Section 5.2)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyAtomic (see Section 5.3)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyComposite (see Section 5.4)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyStatement (see Section 5.5)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicySubject (see Section 5.6)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyTarget (see Section 5.7)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyTerm (see Section 5.8)
             |
             +---SUPAPolicyMetadata (see Section 5.9)


           Figure 6: Main Classes of the SPGIM


   The following subsections define the classes of the SGPIM. If a
   class has attributes, those attributes are also defined.
   Relationships are defined according to the class that is the
   "owner", or primary actor, participating in the relationship.

   Classes, attributes, and relationships that are marked as
   "mandatory" MUST be part of a conformant implementation. Classes,
   attributes, and relationships that are marked as "optional"
   SHOULD be part of a conformant implementation.


5.2. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicy"

   This is a mandatory abstract class. This class is the root of the
   SUPA class hierarchy. It defines the common attributes and
   relationships that all SUPA subclasses inherit. All SUPA classes
   inherit from this class.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 29]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   Figure 7 shows the SUPAPolicy class, and two of its subclasses
   (SUPAPolicyAtomic and SUPAPolicyComposite). This is an
   implementation of the composite pattern [3], which enables a
   SUPAPolicy to be made up of a stand-alone object (an instance of a
   SUPAPolicyAtomic class) or a hierarchy of objects (i.e., instances
   of one or more SUPAPolicyAtomic and SUPAPolicyComposite classes).
   The use of this software pattern enables SUPA Policies to be
   designed as individual objects and/or hierarchies of objects.

                      +-------------------------------+
                      | Parent Class of another Model |
                      +-------------------------------+
                                    / \
      +---------------------+        I
      | HasSUPAPolicyDetail |        I
      +-----+---------------+        I
            ^                        I
            |   1..n +---------------+----------------+
            |       \|                                |
       +----+--------|           SUPAPolicy           |
       |            /|                                |
       |             +--------------------------------+
       |                            / \
       | HasSUPAPolicies             I
       |                             I
       |                             I
       |                             I
       |                 +-----------+----------+
       |                 |                      |
       |                 |                      |
       | 0..1 +----------+----------+ +---------+--------+
       |   / \|                     | |                  |
       +--- A | SUPAPolicyComposite | | SUPAPolicyAtomic |
           \ /|                     | |                  |
              +---------------------+ +------------------+

              Figure 7: The SUPAPolicy Class Hierarchy

   Note that a SUPAPolicy is a PolicyContainer object. A
   SUPAPolicyAtomic as well as a SUPAPolicyComposite are also
   PolicyContainer objects. SUPAPolicy was abstracted from DEN-ng [2],
   and a version of this class is in the process of being added to the
   policy framework defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].








Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 30]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   In figure 7:

      o Both SUPAPolicyComposite and SUPAPolicyAtomic inherit from
        SUPAPolicy
      o The diamond with an enclosed "A" represents an aggregation
        (see Section 3.2.3.4)
      o The HasSUPAPolicies aggregation is implemented as an
        association class (see Section 3.2.3.6)
      o The multiplicity of the HasSUPAPolicies aggregation is
        0..1 - 1..n (zero or one SUPAPolicyComposite object instances
        can aggregate one or more SUPAPolicy object instances, see
        Section 3.2.3.7)
      o The arrow pointing at SUPAPolicy restricts the navigability
        of this aggregation (see Section 3.2.3.8)


5.2.1. SUPAPolicy Attributes

   This section defines the attributes of the SUPAPolicy class. These
   attributes are inherited by all subclasses of the SUPAPolicy class.

5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaObjectIDContent"

   This is a mandatory attribute that represents part of the object
   identifier of an instance of this class. It is a string attribute,
   and defines the content of the object identifier. It works with
   another class attribute, called supaObjectIDFormat, which defines
   how to interpret this attribute. These two attributes form a tuple,
   and together enable a machine to understand the syntax and value of
   an object identifier for the object instance of this class. This is
   based on the DEN-ng class design [2].

   One of the goals of SUPA is to be able to generate different data
   models that support different types of protocols and repositories.
   This means that the notion of an object ID must be generic. In this
   way, different naming schemes, such as those depending on URIs,
   FQDNs, primary key - foreign key relationships, and UUIDs can all
   be accommodated.

5.2.1.2. The Attribute "supaObjectIDFormat"

   This is a mandatory attribute that represents part of the object
   identifier of an instance of this class. It is a string attribute,
   and defines the format of the object identifier. It works with
   another class attribute, called supaObjectIDContent, which defines
   the content of the object ID. These two attributes form a tuple,
   and together enable a machine to understand the syntax and value
   of an object identifier for the object instance of this class.
   This is based on the DEN-ng class design [2].


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 31]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.2.1.3. The Attribute "supaPolicyName"

   This is an optional string attribute that defines the name of this
   Policy. This enables any existing generic naming attribute to be
   used for generic naming, while allowing this attribute to be used
   to name Policy entities in a common manner. Note that this is NOT
   the same as the commonName attribute of the Policy class defined
   in RFC3060 [RFC3060], as that attribute is intended to be used
   with just X.500 cn attributes.


5.2.2. SUPAPolicy Relationships

   This section defines the relationships of the SUPAPolicy class.

5.2.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicies"

   This is a mandatory aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAPolicies that are contained in the instance of this
   particular SUPAPolicyComposite object. The multiplicity of this
   relationship is defined as 0..1 on the aggregate
   (SUPAPolicyComposite) side, and 1..n on the part (SUPAPolicy) side.
   This means that this relationship is optional, but if it is
   instantiated, then one or more SUPAPolicy objects are contained in
   this particular SUPAPolicyComposite object. The semantics of this
   aggregation are implemented using the HasSUPAPolicyDetail
   association class.

5.2.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicyDetail"

   This is a mandatory concrete association class that defines the
   semantics of the HasSUPAPolicies aggregation. This enables the
   attributes and relationships of the HasSUPAPolicyDetail class to
   be used to constrain which SUPAPolicy objects can be aggregated
   by this particular SUPAPolicyComposite object instance.
   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.


5.3. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyAtomic"

   This is a mandatory abstract class. This class is a type of
   PolicyContainer.

   A SUPAPolicyAtomic class represents a SUPA Policy that can operate
   as a single, stand-alone, manageable object. Put another way, a
   SUPAPolicyAtomic object can NOT be modeled as a set of hierarchical
   SUPAPolicy objects; if this functionality is required, then a
   SUPAPolicyComposite object must be used.



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 32]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   No attributes are currently defined for the SUPAPolicyAtomic class.
   It serves as a superclass for the different types of SUPA Policies
   that are defined. In this release, both a SUPAECAPolicyRule (see
   Section 6) as well as a SUPALogicStatement (see Section 7) are
   defined as subclasses of the SUPAPolicyAtomic class.

   SUPAPolicy was abstracted from DEN-ng [2], and a version of this
   class is in the process of being added to the policy framework
   defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].


5.4. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyComposite"

   This is a mandatory concrete class. This class is a type of
   PolicyContainer.

   A SUPAPolicyComposite class represents a SUPA Policy as a
   hierarchy of Policy objects, where the hierarchy contains
   instances of a SUPAPolicyAtomic and/or SUPAPolicyComposite
   object. Each of the SUPA Policy objects, including the outermost
   SUPAPolicyComposite object, are separately manageable. More
   importantly, the SUPAPolicyComposite object can aggregate any
   SUPAPolicy subclass. Hence, it can be used to form hierarchies of
   SUPAPolicies as well as associate SUPAPolicySubjects and/or
   SUPAPolicyTargets to a given SUPAPolicy.

   SUPAPolicy was abstracted from DEN-ng [2], and a version of this
   class is in the process of being added to the policy framework
   defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].


5.4.1. SUPAPolicyComposite Attributes

   This section defines the attributes of the SUPAPolicyComposite
   class. The combination of these two attributes provides a more
   flexible and powerful solution compared to [RFC3060] and [RFC3460].

5.4.1.1. The Attribute "supaPCIsMatchAll"

   This is an optional Boolean attribute. If its value is TRUE, then
   ALL SUPAPolicies that are contained in this SUPAPolicyComposite
   object will be evaluated, regardless of whether a SUPAPolicy fails
   to execute correctly or not. If its value is FALSE, then only the
   FIRST SUPAPolicy contianed in this SUPAPolicyComposite object will
   be evaluated. The default value is TRUE.






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 33]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.4.1.2. The Attribute "supaPCFailureStrategy"

   This is an optional non-negative enumerated integer attribute,
   whose values are used to define what action(s) should be taken if
   a failure occurs when executing a SUPAPolicy object that is
   contained in this SUPAPolicyComposite object. Values include:

      0:  undefined
      1:  stop execution
      2:  attempt rollback on failed policy
      3:  attempt rollback on all policies
      4:  ignore failure and continue

   A value of 0 can be used as an error condition. A value of 1 means
   that ALL execution is stopped, and that other SUPAPolicies that
   otherwise would have been executed are ignored. A value of 2 means
   that execution is stopped, and a rollback of that SUPAPolicy (and
   ONLY that SUPAPolicy) is attempted. A value of 3 means that
   execution is stopped, and all SUPAPolicies that have been previously
   executed (including the one that just failed) are rolled back. A
   value of 4 means that any failure will be ignored, and all
   SUPAPolicies contained in this SUPAPolicyComposite object will be
   executed.

5.4.2. SUPAPolicyComposite Relationships

   This section defines the relationships of SUPAPolicyComposite.

5.4.2.1. The Aggregation "HasSUPAECAPolicyRules"

   This is a mandatory aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAECAPolicyRules that are contained in the instance of this
   particular SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object. The multiplicity
   of this relationship is defined as 0..1 on the aggregate
   (SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite) side, and 1..n on the part
   (SUPAECAPolicyRule) side. This means that one or more
   SUPAECAPolicyRules can be contained in a SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite
   object instance. However, a SUPAECAPolicyRule does not have to be
   associated with a SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite; this is necessary to
   enable SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic object instances to be used in a
   stand-alone manner. The semantics of this aggregation are
   implemented using the HasSUPAECAPolicyRulesDetail association class.









Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 34]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.4.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAECAPolicyRulesDetail"

   This is a mandatory concrete association class that defines the
   semantics of the HasSUPAECAPolicyRules aggregation. This enables
   the attributes and relationships of this association class to be
   used to constrain which SUPAECAPolicyRule objects can be aggregated
   by this particular SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object instance.
   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.


5.5. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyStatement"

   This is a mandatory abstract class that separates the
   representation of a SUPAPolicy from its implementation. This
   abstraction is missing in [RFC3060], [RFC3460], and [4]. There are
   three principal subclasses of SUPAPolicyStatement:

      o SUPAEncodedClause, which is a mechanism to directly encode the
        content of the SUPAPolicyStatement into a set of attributes;
        this is described in more detai lin Section 5.5.2.
      o SUPABooleanClause, which defines a SUPAPolicyStatement as a
        set of one or more clauses; multiple clauses may be combined
        with Boolean AND and OR operators. This defines a SUPAPolicy
        as a completely reusable set of SUPAPolicy objects that are
        structured in an ECA form, and is described in more detail in
        Section 6.10.
      o SUPALogicClause, which defines a SUPAPolicyStatement as either
        a fact or a clause; both are expressed in first-order logic.
        This defines a SUPAPolicy as a completely reusable set of
        SUPAPolicy objects that are structured in FOL, and is described
        in more detail in Section 7.5.

   A SUPAPolicy MAY be constructed using any combination of the above
   three subclasses.

   Both SUPAECAPolicyRules (see Section 6) and SUPALogicStatements
   (see section 7) MUST use SUPAPolicyStatements to define their
   content. This enables the content of these different types of
   Policy to be represented in a common manner.

   Both SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements MAY use a
   SUPAEncodedClause to define their content.

   SUPAECAPolicyRules SHOULD also use a SUPABooleanClause to define
   its content, while SUPALogicStatements SHOULD also use a
   SUPALogicClause to define its content.

   SUPAPolicyStatement was abstracted from DEN-ng [2], and a version
   of this class is in the process of being added to the policy
   framework defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].

Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 35]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

   A class diagram showing SUPAPolicyStatement is shown in Figure 8.
   Note that in Figure 8:

      o SUPAPolicyStatement, SUPAPolicyAtomic, and
        SUPAPolicyComposite are subclasses of SUPAPolicy
      o A SUPAEncodedClause is a subclass of SUPAPolicyStatement,
        and may be used by either a SUPAECAPolicyRule or a
        SUPALogicStatement
      o Both the HasSUPAPolicyStatements and the HasSUPAPolicies
        aggregations are implemented as association classes


          +-------------------------+       +---------------------+
          | HasSUPAPolicyStmtDetail |       | HasSUPAPolicyDetail |
          +-----+-------------------+       +----------+----------+
                ^                                      ^
                |                                      |
                |        1  +-----------------+        |
                |        / \|                 |/       |
        +-------+-------- A |    SUPAPolicy   |--------+------------+
        |                \ /|                 |\                    |
        |                   +-----------------+ 1..n                |
        |                          / \                              |
        | HasSUPAPolicyStatements   I               HasSUPAPolicies |
        |                           I                               |
        |                           I                               |
        |                           I                               |
        |                    +------+------+---------+              |
        |                    I             I         I              |
        |                    I             I         I              |
        |                    I             I         I              |
        |    1..n +----------+----------+  I         I              |
        |        \|                     |  I         I              |
        +---------| SUPAPolicyStatement |  I         I              |
                 /|                     |  I         I              |
                  +---------------------+  I         I              |
                       / \                 I         I              |
                        I      +-----------+------+  I              |
                        I      | SUPAPolicyAtomic |  I              |
        +---------------+      +------------------+  I              |
        I               I                            I              |
        I               I                            I              |
        I               I                            I              |
    +---+---+  +--------+----------+  +--------------+------+       |
    | Other |  | SUPAEncodedClause |  |                     |/ \    |
    |Classes|  +-------------------+  | SUPAPolicyComposite | A ----+
    +-------+                         |                     |\ /
                                      +---------------------+  0..1

        Figure 8: SUPAPolicyStatements and SUPAPolicy Classe


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 36]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

5.5.1. SUPAPolicyStatement Attributes

   This section defines the attributes of the SUPAPolicyStatement
   class. These attributes are inherited by all subclasses of the
   SUPAPolicyStatement class.

5.5.1.1. The Attribute "supaPolicyStmtAdminStatus"

   This is an optional attribute, which is an enumerated non-negative
   integer. It defines the current administrative status of this
   SUPAPolicyStatement.

   This attribute can be used to place this particular
   SUPAPolicyStatement into a specific administrative state, such as
   enabled, disabled, or in test. Note that since a SUPAPolicy (e.g.,
   a SUPAECAPolicyRule or a SUPALogicStatement) is made up of
   SUPAPolicyStatements, this enables all or part of a SUPAPolicy to
   be administratively controlled. Values include:

      0: Unknown (an error state)
      1: Enabled
      2: Disabled
      3: In Test (i.e., no operational traffic can be passed)

   Value 0 denotes an error that prevents this SUPAPolicyStatement
   from being used. Values 1 and 2 mean that this SUPAPolicyStatement
   is administratively enabled or disabled, respectively. A value of
   4 means that this SUPAPolicyStatement is in a special test mode.

5.5.1.2. The Attribute "supaPolicyStmtExecStatus"

   This is an optional attribute, which is an enumerated non-negative
   integer. It defines whether this SUPAPolicyStatement is currently
   in use and, if so, what its status is.

   This attribute can be used to place this particular
   SUPAPolicyStatement into a specific execution state, such as
   enabled, disabled, or in test. Note that since a SUPAPolicy (e.g.,
   a SUPAECAPolicyRule or a SUPALogicStatement) is made up of
   SUPAPolicyStatements, this enables all or part of a SUPAPolicy to
   be administratively controlled.

Values include:

      0: Unknown (an error state)
      1: Working (i.e., in use and no errors reported)
      2: Not Working (i.e., in use, but errors have been reported)
      3: In Test (i.e., no operational traffic can be passed)
      4: Available (i.e., could be used, but currently isn't)
      5: Not Available (i.e., not available for use)


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 37]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

   Value 0 denotes an error that prevents this SUPAPolicyStatement
   from being used. Values 1-3 mean that this SUPAPolicyStatement is
   in use; in addition, this SUPAPolicyStatement is working
   correctly, not working correctly, or in a special test state,
   respectively. Values 4-5 mean that this SUPAPolicyStatement is
   not currently in use; a value of 4 means that it is available and
   could be used, while a value of 5 means that it is unavailable.

5.5.2. SUPAPolicyStatement Subclasses

   As stated before, the primary purpose of SUPAPolicyStatement is to
   define a common type of Policy statement that can be used to
   represent policy content regardless of the type of SUPAPolicy that
   is being used (e.g., it is independent of the requirements of a
   SUPAECAPolicyRule or a SUPALogicStatement). The SGPIM currently
   defines one subclass of SUPAPolicyStatement, called a
   SUPAEncodedClause, which can be used by both SUPAECAPolicyRules as
   well as SUPALogicStatements. Note that clauses dedicated to the
   specific use of a SUPAECAPolicyRule and a SUPALogicStatement are
   defined in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.

5.5.2.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAEncodedClause"

   This is a mandatory concrete class that specializes (i.e., is a
   subclass of) a SUPAPolicyStatement. It defines a generalized
   extension mechanism for representing SUPAPolicyStatements that
   have not been modeled with other SUPAPolicy objects. Rather, the
   Policy Clause is directly encoded into the attributes of the
   SUPAEncodedClause. Note that other subclasses of
   SUPAPolicyStatement use SUPAPolicy objects to define their content.

   This class uses two of its attributes (supaPolicyClauseContent and
   supaPolicyClauseFormat) for defining the content and format of a
   vendor-specific policy statement. This allows direct encoding of the
   policy statement, without having the "overhead" of using other
   objects. However, note that while this method is efficient, it does
   not reuse other SUPAPolicy objects. Rather, it can be thought of as
   a direct encoding of the policy statement. SUPAEncodedClause was
   abstracted from DEN-ng [2].

5.5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaClauseContent"

   This is a mandatory string attribute, and defines the content of
   this encoded clause of this clause. It works with another attribute
   of the SUPAEncodedClause class, called supaClauseFormat, which
   defines how to interpret this attribute. These two attributes form
   a tuple, and together enable a machine to understand the syntax and
   value of the encoded clause for the object instance of this class.
   This is based on the DEN-ng class design [2].



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 38]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.5.2.1.2. The Attribute "supaClauseFormat"

   This is a mandatory string attribute, and defines the format of
   this encoded clause. It works with another attribute of the
   SUPAEncodedClause class, called supaClauseContent, which
   defines the content (i.e., the value) of the encoded clause. These
   two attributes form a tuple, and together enable a machine to
   understand the syntax and value of the encoded clause for the
   object instance of this class. This is based on the DEN-ng class
   design [2].

5.5.2.1.3. The Attribute "supaClauseResponse"

   This is an optional Boolean attribute that emulates a Boolean
   response of this clause, so that it may be combined with other
   subclasses of the SUPAPolicyStatement that provide a status as to
   their correctness and/or evaluation state.


5.5.3. SUPAPolicyStatement Relationships

   This section defines the relationships of SUPAPolicyStatement.

5.5.3.1. The Aggregation "HasSUPAPolicyStatements"

   This is a mandatory aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAPolicyStatements that are contained in the instance of this
   particular SUPAPolicy object. This defines a SUPAPolicy object as
   being made up of at least one SUPAPolicyStatement. The multiplicity
   of this relationship is defined as 1 on the aggregate (SUPAPolicy)
   side, and 1..n on the part (SUPAPolicyStatement) side. This means
   that this relationship is mandatory, and each SUPAPolicy object is
   made up of at least one SUPAPolicyStatement object. The semantics
   of this aggregation are implemented using the
   HasSUPAPolicyStmtDetail association class.

5.5.3.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicyStmtDetail"

   This is a mandatory concrete association class that defines the
   semantics of the HasSUPAPolicyStatements aggregation. This enables
   the attributes and relationships of the HasSUPAPolicyStmtDetail
   class to be used to constrain which SUPAPolicyStatement objects
   can be aggregated by this particular SUPAPolicy object instance.
   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.







Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 39]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.6. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicySubject"

   This is an optional class that defines the set of managed entities
   that authored, or are otherwise responsible for, this
   SUPAPolicyStatement. Note that a SUPAPolicySubject does NOT
   evaluate or execute SUPAPolicies. Its primary use is for
   auditability. A SUPAPolicySubject SHOULD be mapped to a role
   (e.g., using the role-object pattern, as DEN-ng does). A class
   diagram is shown in Figure 9.


     +------------------------+
     | HasSUPAPolicyTgtDetail |
     +-----------+------------+
                 ^
                 |
                 |           0..1  +------------+
                 |              / \|            |
    +------------+-------------- A |            |
    |  HasSUPAPolicyTargets     \ /|            |
    |                              | SUPAPolicy |
    |                        0..1  |            |
    |  HasSUPAPolicySubjects    / \|            |
    | +------------+------------ A |            |
    | |            ^            \ /|            |
    | |            |               +------------+
    | |            |                     / \
    | | +----------+--------------+       I
    | | | HasSUPAPolicySubjDetail |       I
    | | +-------------------------+       I
    | |                                   I
    | |              +--------------------+----+--------------+
    | |              I                         I              I
    | |              I                         I              I
    | |              I                         I              I
    | | 0..n +-------+---------+ 0..n +--------+-------+   (other
    | |     \|                 |     \|                | SUPAPolicy
    | +------|SUPAPolicySubject|  +---|SUPAPolicyTarget| subclasses)
    |       /|                 |  |  /|                |
    |        +-----------------+  |   +----------------+
    |                             |
    +-----------------------------+

          Figure 9.  SUPAPolicySubject and SUPAPolicyTarget

   SUPAPolicySubject was abstracted from DEN-ng [2], and a version of
   this class is in the process of being added to the policy framework
   defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 40]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   In Figure 9:

      o SUPAPolicySubject and SUPAPolicyTarget are both subclasses
        of SUPAPolicy
      o Both the HasSUPAPolicyTargets amd the HasSUPAPolicySubjects
        aggregations are implemented as association classes
      o The multiplicity of both of the above aggregations are 0..1
        on the aggregate (SUPAPolicy) side and 0..n on the target
        (i.e., SUPAPolicySubject and SUPAPolicyTarget, respectively)
        side. This means that both aggregations are optional. If
        either is instantiated, then a SUPAPolicy MAY contain zero
        or more SUPAPolicySubject object instances and MAY contain
        zero or more SUPAPolicyTarget object instances.

5.6.1. SUPAPolicySubject Attributes

   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.

5.6.2. SUPAPolicySubject Relationships

   This section defines the relationships of the SUPAPolicySubject
   class.

5.6.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicySubjects"

   This is an optional aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAPolicySubjects that are contained in the instance of this
   particular SUPAPolicy object. This defines the set of entities
   that authored this particular SUPAPolicy object. The multiplicity
   of this relationship is defined as 0..1 on the aggregate
   (SUPAPolicy) side, and 0..n on the part (SUPAPolicySubject) side.
   This means that this relationship is optional, but if it is
   implemented, then this particular SUPAPolicy object was authored
   by this set of SUPAPolicySubjects. The semantics of this aggregation
   are implemented using the HasSUPAPolicySubjDetail association class.

5.6.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicySubjDetail"

   This is an optional concrete association class that defines the
   semantics of the HasSUPAPolicySubjects aggregation. This enables
   the attributes and relationships of the HasSUPAPolicySubjDetail
   class to be used to constrain which SUPAPolicySubject objects can
   be used to author this particular SUPAPolicy object instance.

   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 41]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.7. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyTarget"

   A PolicyTarget is a set of managed entities that a SUPAPolicy is
   applied to. This is determined by two conditions. First, the set
   of managed entities that are to be affected by the SUPAPolicy
   must all agree to play the role of a SUPAPolicyTarget. In general,
   a managed entity may or may not be in a state that enables
   SUPAPolicies to be applied to it to change its state; hence, a
   negotiation process may need to occur between the
   SUPAPolicySubject and the SUPAPolicyTarget, wherein the
   SUPAPolicyTarget consents to have SUPAPolicies applied to it.

   Second, a SUPAPolicyTarget must be able to either process (either
   directly or with the aid of a proxy) SUPAPolicies or receive the
   results of a processed SUPAPolicy and apply those results to
   itself. If a proposed SUPAPolicyTarget meets both of these
   conditions, it SHOULD set its supaPolicyTargetEnabled Boolean
   attribute to a value of TRUE.

   A SUPAPolicySubject SHOULD be mapped to a role (e.g., using the
   role-object pattern). Figure 9 shows a class diagram of the
   SUPAPolicyTarget.

   SUPAPolicyTarget was abstracted from DEN-ng [2], and a version of
   this class is in the process of being added to the policy framework
   defined in the TM Forum ZOOM model [5].

5.7.1. SUPAPolicyTarget Attributes

   The following subsections define the attributes of a
   SUPAPolicyTarget.

5.7.1.1. The Attribute "supaPolicyTargetEnabled"

   This is an optional Boolean attribute. If its value is TRUE, then
   this indicates that this SUPAPolicyTarget is currently able to
   have SUPAPolicies applied to it. Otherwise, this SUPAPolicyTarget
   is not able to have SUPAPolicies applied to it.

5.7.2. SUPAPolicyTarget Relationships

   This section defines the relationships of the SUPAPolicyTarget
   class.








Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 42]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

5.7.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPAPolicyTargets"

   This is an optional aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAPolicyTargets that are contained in the instance of this
   particular SUPAPolicy object. This defines the set of entities that
   will be operated on by this particular SUPAPolicy object. The
   multiplicity of this relationship is defined as 0..1 on the
   aggregate (SUPAPolicy) side, and 0..n on the part
   (SUPAPolicyTarget) side. This means that this relationship is
   optional, but if it is implemented, then this particular SUPAPolicy
   object will operate on this set of SUPAPolicyTargets. The semantics
   of this aggregation are implemented using the
   HasSUPAPolicyTgtDetail association class.

5.7.2.2. The Association Class "HasSUPAPolicyTgtDetail"

   This is an optional concrete association class that defines the
   semantics of the HasSUPAPolicyTargets aggregation. This enables
   the attributes and relationships of the HasSUPAPolicyTgtDetail
   class to be used to constrain which SUPAPolicyTarget objects can
   be operated on by this particular SUPAPolicy object instance.

   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.


5.8. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyTerm"

   This is a mandatory abstract class that is the parent of SUPAPolicy
   objects that are general purpose in nature, and which are not
   subclasses of SUPAPolicyAtomic, SUPAPolicyComposite,
   SUPAPolicyStatement, SUPAPolicySubject, or SUPAPolicyTarget.

   The principal subclasses of SUPAPolicyTerm that are defined in this
   version of this document are SUPAPolicyVariable, SUPAPolicyOperator,
   and SUPAPolicyValue. These terms enable generic statements to be
   created from a set of reusable terms.

   SUPAPolicyTerm is defined as an abstract class for two reasons:

      1. This enables a single aggregation (SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt; see
         section 5.8.2.1) to be used to specify which object instances
         of which SUPAPolicyTerm subclasses are contained by a
         particular SUPAPolicyStatement object instance. Otherwise, a
         set of three aggregations would be required.
      2. This enables a single class (SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail; see
         section 5.8.2.2) to be used as a superclass to define which
         one of its subclasses participates in this relationship. The
         advantage of this design is that as more SUPAPolicyTerm
         subclasses are added in the future, the SUPAPolicyStatement
         object is not affected.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 43]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   Note that this design emphasizes flexibility and genericity of the
   model. Specifically, this means that the concept of creating a
   SUPAPolicyStatement can take a generic form, consisting of the
   tuple {PolicyVariable, PolicyOperator, PolicyValue}. Note that this
   is one option for constructing SUPAPolicyStatements, and is not
   mandatory; hence, the multiplicity of the SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt
   aggregation (see Section 5.8.2.) is 0..n - 0..n.

   This design is in marked contrast to most existing designs. For
   example, [RFC3060], [RFC3460], and [4] do not define an ECA Policy
   Rule; rather, they are limited to a Policy Rule that only has a
   condition clause and an action clause. Note that there is no
   mechanism for the system to trigger when a Policy Rule should be
   evaluated (because there is no event clause). In addition,
   [RFC3060], [RFC3460], and [4] do not define any type of logic
   statement (or, for that matter, any other type of Policy Rule).

   SUPAPolicyTerm was abstracted from DEN-ng [2].


5.8.1. SUPAPolicyTerm Attributes

   Currently, SUPAPolicyTerm defines two attributes, as described in
   the following subsections.

5.8.1.1 The Attribute "supaPolTermExprContent"

   This is an optional string attribute that defines the content of
   an expression whose value defines the set of objects that are
   part of this SUPAPolicyTerm. It works with another class attribute,
   called supaPolicyTermExprFormat, which defines how to interpret
   this attribute. These two attributes form a tuple, and together
   enable a machine to understand the syntax and value of different
   expressions used to define the set of objects that are part of this
   SUPAPolicyTerm. This is based on the DEN-ng class design [2].

5.8.1.2. The Attribute "supaPolTermExprFormat"

   This is a mandatory attribute that represents part of the object
   identifier of an instance of this class. It is a string attribute,
   and defines the format of the object identifier. It works with
   another class attribute, called supaObjectIDContent, which defines
   the content of the object ID. These two attributes form a tuple,
   and together enable a machine to understand the syntax and value
   of an object identifier for the object instance of this class.
   This is based on the DEN-ng class design [2].





Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 44]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.8.2. SUPAPolicyTerm Relationships

   Currently, SUPAPolicyTerm participates in a single relationship,
   as described in the following subsection.

5.8.2.1. The Aggregation "SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt"

   This is a mandatory aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPAPolicyTerms that are contained in this SUPAPolicyStatement.
   A SUPAPolicyStatement can, in this version of this document, take
   two different forms that have different content requirements; these
   are SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements. Therefore, the
   multiplicity of this relationship is defined as 0..n on the
   aggregate (SUPAPolicyStatement) side, and 0..n on the part
   (SUPAPolicyTerm) side. This means that a SUPAPolicyStatement does
   not have to contain a SUPAPolicyTerm; this is typically true for
   SUPALogicStatement. However, if a SUPAPolicyStatement
   does require one or more SUPAPolicyTerms, then those may be
   defined using this aggregation. The semantics of this aggregation
   are implemented using the SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail association
   class.

5.8.2.2. The Association Class "SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail"

   This is a mandatory abstract association class that defines the
   semantics of the SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt aggregation. This enables
   the attributes and relationships of the SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail
   class to be used to constrain which SUPAPolicyTerm objects can be
   aggregated by this particular SUPAPolicyStatement object instance.

   The preferred design is to keep this association class abstract,
   and create three subclasses from it that constrain the set of
   SUPAPolicyVariables, SUPAPolicyOperators, and SUPAPolicyValues
   that are used with this particular SUPAPolicyStatement. This
   provides a direct and simple mapping to optimized data models.
   Alternatively, appropriate attributes could be added to this
   association class to define the constraint, but such attributes
   would also have to take into account the type of PolicyTerm
   subclass that is being constrained.

   Attributes will be added to this class at a later time.


5.8.3. SUPAPolicyTerm Subclasses

   The following three subsections define three subclasses of the
   SUPAPolicyTerm class.




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 45]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

5.8.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyVariable"

   This is a mandatory abstract class that defines information that
   forms a part of a SUPAPOlicyStatement. It specifies a concept or
   attribute that should be compared to a value, as specifed in this
   SUPAPolicyStatement. If it is used in a SUPAECAPolicyRule, then
   its value MAY be able to be changed at any time. However, if it is
   used in a SUPALogicStatement, then it is typically bound to an
   expression, and keeps a single value during its entire lifetime.
   SUPAPolicyVariable was abstracted from DEN-ng [2].

   The value of a SUPAPolicyVariable is typically compared to the
   value of a SUPAPolicyValue using the type of operator defined in a
   SUPAPolicyOperator.

   SUPAPolicyVariables are used to abstract the representation of a
   SUPAPolicyRule from its implementation. Therefore, the design of
   SUPAPolicyVariables depends on two important factors. First, some
   SUPAPolicyVariables are restricted in the values and/or the data
   type that they may be assigned. For example, port numbers cannot
   be negative, and they cannot be floating-point numbers. Thus, any
   SUPAPolicyVariable can have a set of constraints associated with it
   that restrict the value, data type, and other semantics of the
   SUPAPolicyVariable when used in a particular SUPAPolicyStatement.
   Second, there is a high likelihood that specific applications will
   need to use their own variables that have specific meaning to a
   particular application.

   SUPAPolicyVariable constraints are implemented using an AGGREGATION
   THAT WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

   SUPAPolicyVariable extensibility is accommodated by providing two
   subclasses of SUPAPolicyVariable: model-based variables and
   application-defined variables. THESE WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT
   VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


5.8.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyOperator"

   This is a mandatory concrete class for modeling different types of
   operators that are used in a SUPAPolicyStatement. The restriction
   of the type of operator used in a SUPAPolicyStatement restricts the
   semantics that can be expressed in that SUPAPolicyStatement.
   SUPAPolicyOperator was abstracted from DEN-ng [2].

5.8.3.2.1. The Attribute "supaPolOpType"

   This is a mandatory non-negative enumerated integer that specifies
   the various types of operators that are allowed to be used in this
   particular SUPAPolicyStatement. Values include:


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 46]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


     0:  Unknown
     1:  Match
     2:  Greater than
     3:  Greater than or equal to
     4:  Less than
     5:  Less than or equal to
     6:  Equal to
     7:  Not equal to
     8:  IN
     9:  NOT IN
    10:  SET
    11:  CLEAR

   Note that 0 is an unacceptable value. Its purpose is to support
   dynamically building a SUPAPolicyStatement by enabling the
   application to set the value of this attribute to a standard
   default value if the real value is not yet known.


5.8.3.3. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyValue"

   The SUPAPolicyValue class is a mandatory abstract class for
   modeling different types of values and constants that occur in a
   PolicyStatement. SUPAPolicyValue was abstracted from DEN-ng [2].

   The value of a SUPAPolicyVariable is typically compared to the
   value of a SUPAPolicyValue using the type of operator defined in a
   SUPAPolicyOperator.

   SUPAPolicyValues are used to abstract the representation of a
   SUPAPolicyRule from its implementation. Therefore, the design of
   SUPAPolicyValues depends on two important factors. First, just as
   with SUPAPolicyVariables (see Section 5.8.3.1), some types of
   SUPAPolicyValues are restricted in the values and/or the data
   type that they may be assigned. Second, there is a high likelihood
   that specific applications will need to use their own variables
   that have specific meaning to a particular application.

   SUPAPolicyVariable constraints are implemented using an AGGREGATION
   THAT WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

   SUPAPolicyValue extensibility is accommodated by providing two
   subclasses of SUPAPolicyValue: model-based values and
   application-defined values. THESE WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT
   VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 47]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


5.9. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyMetadata"

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

   SUPAPolicyMetadata was abstracted from DEN-ng [2]. A more complete
   representation of metadata, as defined in [2], is in the process
   of being added to the policy framework defined in the TM Forum
   ZOOM model [5].


5.9.1. SUPAPolicyMetadata Attributes

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

5.9.2. SUPAPolicyMetadata Relationships

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


































Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 48]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6. SUPA ECAPolicyRule Information Model

   This section defines the classes, attributes, and relationships
   of the SUPA ECAPolicyRule Information Model (EPRIM).

6.1. Overview

   Conceptually, the EPRIM is a set of subclasses that specialize the
   concepts defined in the SGPIM for representing the components of a
   Policy that uses ECA semantics. This is shown in Figure 10.


   (Class of another model that SUPA is integrating into)
       |
       +---SUPAPolicy (see Section 5.2)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyAtomic (see Section 5.3)
       |     |     |
       |     |     +---SUPAECAPolicyRule (see Section 6.4)
       |     |     |
       |     |     +---SUPAECAComponent (see Section 6.6)
       |     |           |
       |     |           +---SUPAEvent (see Section 6.7)
       |     |           |
       |     |           +---SUPACondition (see Section 6.8)
       |     |           |
       |     |           +---SUPAAction (see Section 6.9)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyComposite (see Section 5.4)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyStatement (see Sections 5.5 and 6.5)
       |     |     |
       |     |     +---SUPAEncodedClause (see Section 5.5.2.1)
       |     |     |
       |     |     +---SUPABooleanClause (see Section 6.5.2)       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicySubject (see Section 5.6)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyTarget (see Section 5.7)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyTerm (see Section 5.8)
       |     |
       |     +---SUPAPolicyMetadata (see Section 5.9)
      ...

          Figure 10: The EPRIM Refining the SGPIM





Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 49]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   Specifically, the EPRIM specializes the SUPAPolicyAtomic class to
   create a SUPAECAPolicyRule; it also specializes the SUPAPolicy
   class to create a SUPAECAComponent, and the SUPAPolicyStatement to
   create a SUPABooleanClause. The SUPAECAPolicyRule uses the rest of
   the SGPIM infrastructure to define a complete Policy model
   according to ECA semantics.

   The overall strategy for refining the SGPIM is as follows:

      o SUPAECAPolicyRule is defined as a subclass of the SGPIM
        SUPAPolicyAtomic class
      o A SUPAECAPolicyRule has event, condition, and action clauses;
        each of these are created by either a SUPABooleanClause or a
        SUPAEncodedClause
      o A SUPAECAComponent defines SUPAEvent, SUPACondition, and
        SUPAAction objects that are used to create the event,
        condition, and action clauses of a SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o Both a SUPABooleanClause and a SUPAEncodedClause inherit the
        HasSUPAECAComponents aggregation, so both of these types of
        clauses can use SUPAECAComponents in their construction
      o Both a SUPABooleanClause and a SUPAEncodedClause inherit the
        SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt aggregation, so both of these types of
        clauses can use SUPAPolicyTerms in their construction
      o An optional set of SGPIM SUPAPolicySubjects can be defined to
        represent the authoring of a SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o An optional set of SGPIM SUPAPolicyTargets can be defined to
        represent the set of managed entities that will be affected
        by this SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o An optional set of SUPAPolicyMetadata can be defined for any
        of the objects that make up a SUPAECAPolicyRule and/or a
        SUPAECAComponent


6.2. Constructing a SUPAECAPolicyRule

   There are several different ways to construct a SUPAECAPolicyRule.
   The simplest approach is as follows:

      o Define three types of SUPABooleanClauses (see Section 6.7),
        one each for the event, condition, and action clauses that
        make up a SUPAECAPolicyRule (see Section 6.4)
      o Define a set of SUPAEvent, SUPACondition, and SUPAAction
        objects (see Section 6.5.1, 6.5.2, and 6.5.3, respectively),
        and associate each with the SUPABooleanClause that represents
        the event, condition, and action clauses, respectively, of the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o Define a SUPAECAPolicyRule, which is a subclass of the SGPIM
        SUPAPolicyAtomic class (see Section 5.3)



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 50]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


      o Aggregate the three SUPABooleanClauses into the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o Optionally, define a set of SUPAPolicySubjects and
        SUPAPolicyTargets, and aggregate them into the
        SUPAECAPolicyRule
      o Optionally, define SUPAPolicyMetadata for any of the above
        objects, and aggregate them to the SUPAPolicy objects that
        the SUPAPolicyMetadata applies to


6.3. Working With SUPAECAPolicyRules

   A SUPAECAPolicyRule is a type of SUPAPolicy. It is a tuple that
   MUST have three clauses, defined as follows:

      o The event clause defines a Boolean expression that, if
        TRUE, triggers the evaluation of its condition clause (if the
        event clause is not TRUE, then no further action for this
        policy rule takes place).
      o The condition clause defines a Boolean expression that, if
        TRUE, enables the actions in the action clause to be executed
        (if the condition clause is not TRUE, then no further action
        for this policy rule takes place).
      o The action clause is a set of actions, whose
        execution MAY be controlled by the SUPAMmetadata of the
        policy rule.

   Each of the three clauses can be constructed from either a
   SUPAEncodedClause or a SUPABooleanClause. The advantage of using
   SUPAEncodedClauses is simplicity, as the content of the clause is
   encoded directly into the attributes of the SUPAEncodedClause. The
   advantage of using SUPABooleanClauses is reusability, since each
   term in each clause is potentially a reusable object.

   Since a SUPABooleanClause is a subclass of a SUPAPolicyStatement
   (see Section 5.5), it can aggregate SUPAPolicyTerm objects as well
   as SUPAECAComponent objects. Therefore, a SUPAECAPolicyRule can be
   built entirely from objects defined in the SGPIM. As will be shown
   in Section 7.3, this is also true for SUPALogicStatements.

  The construction of a SUPAECAPolicyRule is shown in Figure 11, and
  is explained in Section 6.4.









Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 51]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


      +----------------------+            +---------------------+
      |   SUPAPolicyAtomic   |            |      SUPAPolicy     |
      +----------------------+            +---------------------+
                 / \                                / \
                  I                                  I
                  I                                  I
                  I                                  I
                  I                                  I
     +------------+------------+        +------------+------------+
     |    SUPAECAPolicyRule    |        |     SUPAECAComponent    |
     +-------------------------+        +-------------------------+
               0..1/ \                             1..n/ \
                    A                                   |
                   \ /                                  |
                    |                                   |
                    |   +-------------------------+     |
                    |   |HasSUPAECAComponentDetail|     |
                    |   +-------------+-----------+     |
                    |                 ^                 |
                    |                 |                 |
                    |                 |                 |
                    +-----------------+-----------------+
                           HasSUPAECAComponents


                Figure 11.  SUPAECAPolicyRule Clauses

   NOTE: This is a simplified design, inspired from [2]. The
   HasSUPAECAComponents aggregation is implemented using the
   HasSUPAECAComponentDetail association class. This is an abstract
   class further described in Section 6.4.2. It has three concrete
   subclasses, one each that correspond to the three subclasses of
   SUPAECAComponent (i.e., SUPAEvent, SUPACondition, and SUPAAction),
   which are all concrete. This enables one aggregation to define a
   set of constraints between a SUPAPolicyStatement and the set of
   Events, Conditions, and/or Actions that it can contain.


6.4. The Concrete Class "SUPAECAPolicyRule"

   This is a concrete mandatory class. In keeping with the original
   DEN-ng model [1], this class is a PolicyContainer that contains
   PolicyEvents, PolicyConditions, PolicyActions, and optionally,
   PolicyMetadata. As such, it doesn't have an inherent relationship
   with PolicySubject or PolicyTarget; these all represent the
   specific semantics for a particular SUPAPolicy. Hence, such
   semantics are defined in an instance of the SUPAPolicyComposite
   class that contains a SUPAECAPolicyRule, if they are required.



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 52]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   The semantics of a SUPAECAPolicyRule may be conceptualized as
   follows:
      ON RECEIPT OF <policy-event-clause>
         IF <policy-condition-clause> EVALUATES TO TRUE
            THEN EXECUTE <policy-action-clause>
         END
      END

   In the above, a policy-event-clause, policy-condition-clause, and
   a policy-action-clause are each instances of either a
   SUPAEncodedClause or a SUPABooleanClause.

   This class was based on the ECAPolicyRule class of [2].


6.4.1. SUPAECAPolicyRule Attributes

   Currently, the SUPAECAPolicyRule defines two attributes, as
   described in the following subsections.

6.4.1.1. The Attribute "supaECAPRDeployStatus"

   This is an optional attribute, which is an enumerated,
   non-negative integer. It defines the current deployment status of
   this SUPAECAPolicyRule. Both operational and test mode values are
   included in its definition. Values include:

      0:  undefined
      1:  deployed and enabled
      2:  deployed and in test
      3:  deployed but not enabled
      4:  ready to be deployed
      5:  not deployed

6.4.1.2. The Attribute "supaECAPRExecStatus"

   This is an optional attribute, which is an enumerated,
   non-negative integer that defines the current execution status of
   this SUPAECAPolicyRule. Both operational and test mode values are
   included in its definition. Values include:

      0:  undefined
      1:  executed and SUCEEDED (operational mode)
      2:  executed and FAILED (operational mode)
      3:  currently executing (operational mode)
      4:  executed and SUCEEDED (test mode)
      5:  executed and FAILED (test mode)
      6:  currently executing (test mode)



Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 53]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6.4.2. SUPAECAPolicyRule Relationships

   Currently, the SUPAECAPolicyRule does not define any relationships;
   rather, it uses those of the SPGIM and ERPIM to construct its
   ECA Policy Rules.


6.4.2. SUPAECAPolicyRule Subclasses

   The composite pattern is applied to the SUPAECAPolicyRule class,
   enabling it to be used as either a stand-alone policy rule or as
   a hierarchy of policy rules.

6.4.2.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic"

   This is a mandatory concrete class. This class is a type of
   PolicyContainer. SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic was abstracted from
   DEN-ng [2].

   A SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic class represents a SUPA ECA Policy Rule
   that can operate as a single, stand-alone, manageable object. Put
   another way, a SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic object can NOT be modeled as
   a set of hierarchical SUPAECAPolicyRule objects; if this is
   required, then a SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object must be used.

   Attributes afor the SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic class WILL BE DEFINED
   IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


6.4.2.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite"

   This is a mandatory concrete class. This class is a type of
   PolicyContainer. SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite was abstracted from
   DEN-ng [2]

   A SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite class represents a SUPA ECA Policy
   Rule as a hierarchy of Policy objects, where the hierarchy contains
   instances of a SUPAECAPolicyRuleAtomic and/or
   SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object. Each of the SUPA Policy objects,
   including the outermost SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object, are
   separately manageable. More importantly, the
   SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite object can aggregate any
   SUPAECAPolicyRule subclass. Hence, it can be used to form
   hierarchies of SUPAECAPolicyRules as well as associate
   SUPAPolicySubjects and/or SUPAPolicyTargets to a given
   SUPAECAPolicyRule.

   Attributes afor the SUPAECAPolicyRuleComposite class WILL BE
   DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 54]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6.5. SUPAPolicyStatement Subclasses

   Section 5.5.2 defines a common subclass of SUPAPolicyStatement,
   called SUPAEncodedClause, which any SUPAPolicy (rule or predicate)
   can use. This section describes another specialization of the
   SGPIM SUPAPolicyStatement class for use in constructing (only)
   SUPAECAPolicyRule objects.

   The SUPAPolicyStatement class, and its subclasses, are based on
   similar classes in [2].

6.5.1. Designing SUPAPolicyStatements Using SUPABooleanClauses

   A SUPABooleanClause specializes a SUPAPolicyClause, and defines a
   Boolean statement consisting of a standard structure in the form
   of a PolicyVariable, a PolicyOperator, and a PolicyValue. This
   design is based on the DEN-ng model [2]. For example, this enables
   the following Boolean clause to be defined:

      Foo >= Bar AND Baz

   where Foo is a PolicyVariable, >= is a PolicyOperator, and Bar is
   a PolicyValue. Note that in this approach, each of these three
   terms (i.e., the PolicyVariable, PolicyOperator, and PolicyValue)
   are subclasses of the SUPAPolicyTerm class, which is defined in
   Section 5.8). This enables the EPRIM, in conjunction with the
   SGPIM, to be used as a reusable class library. This encourages
   interoperability, since each element of the clause is itself an
   object defined by SUPA.

   The addition of a negation in the above statement is provided by
   the supaTermIsNegated Boolean attribute in the SUPAPolicyTerm
   class. An entire clause is indicated as negated using the
   supaBoolIsNegated Boolean attribute in the SUPABooleanClause class.

   A PolicyStatement is in Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF) if it is a
   conjunction (i.e., a sequence of ANDed terms), where each term is a
   disjunction (i.e., a sequence of ORed terms). Every statement that
   consists of a combination of AND, OR, and NOT operators can be
   written in CNF.

   A PolicyStatement is in Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) if it is a
   disjunction (i.e., a sequence of ORed terms), where each term is a
   conjunction (i.e., a sequence of ANDed terms). Every statement that
   consists of a combination of AND, OR, and NOT operators can be
   written in DNF.

   The supaBoolISCNF Boolean attribute of the SUPABooleanClause class
   is TRUE if this SUPABooleanClause is in CNF, and FALSE otherwise.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 55]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   The construction of more complex clauses, which consist of a set
   of simple clauses in conjunctive or disjunctive normal form (as
   shown in the above example), is provided by using the composite
   pattern [3] to construct two subclasses of SUPABooleanClause.
   These are called SUPABooleanClauseAtomic and
   SUPABooleanClauseComposite, and are defined in Sections 6.5.2.1 and
   6.5.2.2, respectively. This enables instances of either a
   SUPABooleanClauseAtomic and/or a SUPABooleanClauseComposite to be
   aggregated into a SUPABooleanClauseComposite object.


6.5.2. The Abstract Class"SUPABooleanClause"

   This is a mandatory abstract class that defines a clause as the
   following three-tuple:

         {PolicyVariable, PolicyOperator, PolicyValue}

   The composite pattern [3] is used in order to construct complex
   Boolean clauses from a set of SUPABooleanClause objects. This is
   why SUPABooleanClause is defined to be abstract - only instances
   of the SUPABooleanAtomic and/or SUPABooleanComposite classes can
   be used to construct a SUPABooleanClause.

   Figure 12 below shows the composite pattern applied to the
   SUPABooleanClause class.

                           1..n +-------------------+
                               \|                   |
               +--------------- | SUPABooleanClause |
               |               /|                   |
               |                +-------------------+
               |                        / \
               | HasSUPABooleanClauses   I
               |                         I
               |                         I
               |        +----------------+---------+
              / \       I                          I
               A        I                          I
         0..1 \ /       I                          I
       +----------------+---------+    +-----------+-----------+
       |SUPABooleanClauseComposite|    |SUPABooleanClauseAtomic|
       +--------------------------+    +-----------------------+

   Figure 12.  The Composite Pattern Applied to a SUPABooleanClause






Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 56]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   The advantage of a SUPABooleanClause is that it is formed entirely
   from SUPAPolicy objects. This enhances both reusability as well as
   interoperability. Since this involves compositing a number of
   objects, data model implementations MAY optimize a
   SUPABooleanClause according to their application-specific needs
   (e.g., by flattening the set of classes that make up a
   SUPABooleanClause object into a single object).

6.5.2.1. SUPABooleanClause Attributes

   The following sections define attributes of a SUPABooleanClause.

6.5.2.1.1. The Attribute "supaBoolIsNegated"

   This is a mandatory Boolean attribute. If the value of this
   attribute is TRUE, then this SUPABooleanClause is negated.

6.5.2.2. SUPABooleanClause Relationships

   The following subsections define the relationships of a
   SUPABooleanClause.

6.5.2.2.1. The Relationship "HasSUPABooleanClauses"

   This is a mandatory aggregation that defines the set of
   SUPABooleanClauses that are aggregated by this
   SUPABooleanClauseComposite. This will either form a complete
   SUPABooleanClause from multiple clauses (which can be made up of
   SUPABooleanClauseAtomic and/or SUPABooleanClauseComposite object
   instances) or define another level in the SUPABooleanClause object
   hierarchy. The multiplicity of this relationship is 0..1 on the
   aggregate (SUPABooleanClauseComposite) side, and 1..n on the part
   (SUPABooleanClause) side. This means that one or more
   SUPABooleanClauses are aggregated and used to define this
   SUPABooleanClauseComposite object. The 0..1 cardinality on the
   SUPABooleanClauseComposite side is necessary to enable
   SUPABooleanClauses to exist (e.g., in a PolicyRepository) before
   they are used by a SUPABooleanClauseComposite.

6.5.3. SUPABooleanClause Subclasses

   SUPABooleanClause defines two subclasses, as shown in Figure 12.
   They are both described in the following subsections.








Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 57]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015

6.5.3.1. The Abstract Class "SUPABooleanClauseAtomic"

   This is a mandatory abstract class that represents a
   SUPABooleanClause that can operate as a single, stand-alone,
   manageable object. Put another way, a SUPABooleanClauseAtomic
   object can NOT be modeled as a set of hierarchical clauses; if
   this functionality is required, then a SUPABooleanClauseComposite
   object must be used.

   No attributes are currently defined for the SUPABooleanClauseAtomic
   class. Its primary purpose is to aggregate SUPAPolicyVariable,
   SUPAPolicyOperator, and SUPAPolicyValue objects to form a complete
   SUPABoolean clause. As such, this class is defined as abstract to
   simplify data model optimization and mapping.

   The three primary subclasses of the SUPABooleanClauseAtomic class
   are shown in Figure 13.

                       +-------------------------+
                       | SUPABooleanClauseAtomic |
                       +-------------------------+
                                   / \
                                    I
                                    I
                   +-------------+--+-----------+
                   I             I              I
                   I             I              I
        +----------+---------+   I              I
        | SUPAPolicyVariable |   I              I
        +--------------------+   I              I
                                 I              I
                      +----------+---------+    I
                      | SUPAPolicyOperator |    I
                      +------------------- +    I
                                                I
                                       +--------+--------+
                                       | SUPAPolicyValue |
                                       +---------------- +

          Figure 13.  SUPABooleanClauseAtomic Subclasses

6.5.3.1.1. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyVariable"

   This is a mandatory abstract class. It is similar to the
   PolicyVariable class of [RFC3460], but there are some important
   differences in the SUPA version of this class that make the SUPA
   version more generic than the version defined in [RFC3460]. The
   problems in the definition of the [RFC3460] version of this class
   are discussed in Section 6.5.3.1.1.1, and the SUPAPolicyVariable
   class definition is defined in Section 6.5.3.1.1.2.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 58]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6.5.3.1.1.1. Problems with the RFC3460 Version of PolicyVariable

   First, [RFC3460] says: "Variables are used for building
   individual conditions". While this is true, variables can also be
   used for building individual actions. This is reflected in the
   SUPAPolicyVariable definition.

   Second, [RFC3460] says: "The variable specifies the property of a
   flow or an event that should be matched when evaluating the
   condition." While this is true, variables can be used to test many
   broader things than "just" a flow or an event. This is reflected
   in the SUPAPolicyVariable definition.

   Third, in [RFC3460], defining constraints for a variable is
   limited to associating the variable with a PolicyValue. This is
   both cumbersome (because associations are costly), and not
   scalable, because it is prone to proliferating PolicyValue
   classes for every constraint (or range of constraints) that is
   possible. Therefore, in SUPA, this mechanism is replaced with
   using an association to a generic SUPAConstraint object.

   Fourth, [RFC3460] is tightly bound to the DMTF CIM schema [4].
   The CIM is a data model (despite its name), because:
      o It uses keys and weak relationships, which are both concepts
        from relational algebra and thus, not technology-independent
      o It has its own proprietary modeling language
      o It contains a number of concepts that are not defined in UML
        (including overriding keys for subclasses)

6.5.3.1.1.2. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyVariable"

   This class is based on a similar class defined in [2].

   To be finished in the next version of this document.

   The big question to be answered is whether to keep the
   PolicyImplicitVariable and PolicyExplicitVariable subclasses of
   [RFC3460] or not.


6.5.3.1.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPolicyOperator"

   This is a mandatory abstract class. Note that there is no
   equivalent to this class in [RFC3460], which causes a number of
   problems in the overloading of the semantics of an operator for
   defining clauses in an ECA policy rule. This class is based on a
   similar class defined in [2].

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 59]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6.5.3.1.3. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyValue"

   This is a mandatory abstract class. It is similar to the
   PolicyValue class of [RFC3460], but there are some important
   differences in the SUPA version of this class that make the SUPA
   version more generic than the version defined in [RFC3460]. The
   problems in the definition of the [RFC3460] version of this class
   are discussed in Section 6.5.3.1.3.1, and the SUPAPolicyVariable
   class definition is defined in Section 6.5.3.1.3.2.

6.5.3.1.3.1. Problems with the RFC3460 Version of PolicyValue

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.

6.5.3.1.3.2. The Abstract Class "SUPAPolicyValue"

   This class is based on a similar class defined in [2].

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.


6.5.4. The Abstract Class "SUPABooleanClauseComposite"

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.

6.5.4.1. SUPABooleanClauseComposite Attributes

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.

6.5.4.2. SUPABooleanClauseComposite Relationships

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.



















Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 60]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


6.6. The Abstract Class "SUPAECAComponent"

   The principal subclasses of SUPAPolicyTerm that are defined in this
   version of this document are SUPAPolicyEvent, SUPAPolicyCondition,
   and SUPAPolicyAction.

   SUPAPolicyTerm is defined as an abstract class for two reasons:

      1. This enables a single aggregation (SUPAPolicyTermsInStmt; see
         section 5.8.2.1) to be used to specify which object instances
         of which SUPAPolicyTerm subclasses are contained by a
         particular SUPAPolicyStatement object instance. Otherwise, a
         set of three aggregations would be required.
      2. This enables a single class (SUPAPolicyTermsInStmtDetail; see
         section 5.8.2.2) to be used as a superclass to define which
         one of its subclasses participates in this relationship. The
         advantage of this design is that as more SUPAPolicyTerm
         subclasses are added in the future, the SUPAPolicyStatement
         object is not affected.



6.7. The Abstract Class"SUPAEvent"

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


6.8. The Abstract Class"SUPACondition"

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.


6.9. The Abstract Class"SUPAAction"

   THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN THE NEXT VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
















Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 61]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


7. SUPA Logic Statement Information Model

   This section defines the classes, attributes, and relationships of
   the SUPA Logic Statement Information Model (SLSIM).

7.1. Overview

   A Goal policy rule (also called a declarative policy rule, or an
   intent-based policy rule) is a declarative statement that defines
   what the policy should do, but not how to implement the policy. In
   this draft, such rules are called SUPA Logic Statements.

   This Section, and the following Sections, will be finished in the
   next version of this document.

7.2. Constructing a SUPAPLStatement



7.3. Working With SUPAPLStatements



7.4. The Abstract Class "SUPALogicClause"



7.5. The Abstract Class "SUPAPLStatement"



7.5.1. SUPAPLStatement Attributes



7.5.2. SUPAPLStatement Relationships



7.5.3. SUPAPLStatement Subclasses


7.5.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAArgument"


7.5.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAPLPremise"


7.5.3.3. The Concrete Class "SUPAPLConclusion"


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 62]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


7.6. Constructing a SUPAFOLStatement


7.7. Working With SUPAFOLStatements


7.7.1. SUPAFOLStatement Attributes


7.7.2. SUPAFOLStatement Relationships


7.7.3. SUPAFOLStatement Subclasses


7.7.3.1. The Concrete Class "SUPAGoalHead"


7.7.3.2. The Concrete Class "SUPAGoalBody"


7.8. Combining Different Types of SUPAFOLStatements



8. Examples


8.1. SUPAECAPolicyRule Examples



8.2. SUPALogicStatement Examples


8.3. Mixing SUPAECAPolicyRules and SUPALogicStatements



9. Security Considerations

   This will be defined in the next version of this document.


10. IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.




Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 63]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


11. Acknowledgments

   This document has benefited from reviews, suggestions, comments
   and proposed text provided by the following members, listed in
   alphabetical order: Bob Natale, Liu (Will) Shucheng, Marie-Jose
   Montpetit.


12. References

This section defines normative and informative references for this document.

12.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3060]   Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J., Westerinen,
               A., "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1
               Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001

   [RFC3198]   Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J.,
               Scherling, M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A.,
               Carlson, M., Perry, J., Waldbusser, S., "Terminology
               for Policy-Based Management", RFC 3198, November, 2001

   [RFC3460]   Moore, B., ed., "Policy Core Information Model (PCIM)
               Extensions, RFC 3460, January 2003

   [RFC6020]   Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
               the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
               RFC 6020, October 2010.

   [RFC6021]   Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6021,
               October 2010.

12.2. Informative References

   [1]         Strassner, J., "Policy-Based Network Management",
               Morgan Kaufman, ISBN 978-1558608597, Sep 2003

   [2]         Strassner, J., ed., "The DEN-ng Information Model",
               add stable URI

   [3]         Riehle, D., "Composite Design Patterns", Proceedings
               of the 1997 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming
               Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA '97).
               ACM Press, 1997. Page 218-228


Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 64]


Internet-Draft            SUPA Generic Policy Model           May 2015


   [4]         DMTF, CIM Schema, v2.43,
               http://dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v2440

   [5]         Strassner, J., ed., "ZOOM Policy Architecture and
               Information Model Snapshot", TR245, part of the
               TM Forum ZOOM project, October 26, 2014

   [6]         TM Forum, "Information Framework (SID), GB922 and
               associated Addenda, v14.5,
               https://www.tmforum.org/information-framework-sid/








Authors' Addresses

   John Strassner
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95138  USA
   Email: john.sc.strassner@huawei.com


























Strassner, et al.         Expires November 09, 2015          [Page 65]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/