Subject: Re: policyTimePeriodCondition

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:08:43 -0400

Gwen,

Yes, I guess it is an oversight.

I'm no parser expert, but on the face of it we should be able
to accommodate both your case and the converse case ("Do until...")
where there's an ending date/time but no starting one, by
changing the string format to

     [yyyymmddhhmmss]:[yyyymmddhhmmss]

If we did it this way, we'd want the text to say that either
a starting date/time, an ending date/time, or both must be
present.

Regards,
Bob

Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
[email-masked]

"Fairbanks, Gwenyth" <[email-masked]> on 05/18/99 10:30:49 AM

Please respond to "Fairbanks, Gwenyth" <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM)
Subject:  policyTimePeriodCondition

It appears that policyTimePeriodCondition doesn't allow a way to specify a
rule that becomes effective at a particular date in the future but never
expires. Is this an oversight?

Gwen Fairbank,  Data Networking Systems, LPG, Network Management Engineering
*:Lucent Technologies Inc., 300 Baker Ave. Suite 100, Concord, MA 01742-2168
*:(978) 287-9185    *:(978) 287-9050     *:[email-masked]