Subject: RE: group in group in MIB

From: "Jason, Jamie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 15:14:57 -0700

> Lee> True (...not the silly part, but the restriction in the ICPM info
> Lee> model).
> 
> It seems that every time I find something I don't like, its always our
> parent's fault...

That's an unfortunate side effect of the mandate that we derive the IPsec
policy model from PCIM.  We are happy with the things we like, but we are
unhappy about the warts.  We have tried to, within our power, mitigate the
effect of the things we don't like.

> -------- see here --------------
>                 precedence).  The merging order of two ContainedGroups
>                 with the same precedence is undefined.
> -------- see here --------------
> 
> That text is the reason for my comment.  I guess that text was missed
> in the last update?

True.  I'll make a note that this text needs to be fixed for the next
revision.

Jamie