Subject: [Geopriv] consensus call: common-policy and <id> element

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:44:44 +0200

hi all, 

after some discussions regarding the xcap/id comment raised by aki i
would like to solicit feedback in order to update the draft: 

background:
----------

xcap only allows node selection based on element name, attribute or
position. it does not allow selection based on 
element content.

assumptions:
-----------

a single rules contains multiple <id> elements. updates of an individual
<id> element is desired (without uploading the entire rule).

the requested change only impacts the <id> element based on the
assumption that the desired updates effect mostly the <id> element
(rather than actions or transformations).

impact of the change:
--------------------

the identity needs to be expressed as an attribute rather than as a
value. 

consequence: 
-----------

 - xml schema needs an update 
 - examples need to be updated

to illustrate the change here is an example:

an example from the previous common-policy version:

 <rule id="f3g44r1">

    <conditions>
      <identity>
        <id>[email-masked]</id>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (this is the important part)
      </identity>
      <validity>
        <from>2003-12-24T17:00:00+01:00</from>
        <to>2003-12-24T19:00:00+01:00</to>
      </validity>
    </conditions>

    <actions/>

  </rule>

here is the example based on the requested change:

 <rule id="f3g44r1">

    <conditions>
      <identity>
        <id val=">[email-masked]"/>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (this is the important part)
      </identity>
      <validity>
        <from>2003-12-24T17:00:00+01:00</from>
        <to>2003-12-24T19:00:00+01:00</to>
      </validity>
    </conditions>

    <actions/>

  </rule>

question: 
--------

a) should we put the value of the id element into an attribute? 

b) the <id> value appears more than once in schema. hence, there is the
question which <id> (and id related) elements should be affected by the
change. please take a look at the following list:

conditions/identity/id                          (1)
conditions/identity/domain/except			(1)
conditions/identity/domain				(2)
conditions/identity/except				(2)
conditions/identity/asserted/id			(2)
conditions/identity/asserted/domain			(2)
conditions/identity/asserted/except			(2)
conditions/identity/aserted-by/id			(2)
conditions/identity/asserted-by/domain		(2)
conditions/identity/asserted-by/except		(2)
conditions/identity/anonymous/domain		(2)
conditions/identity/any-identity/domain		(2)
conditions/identity/any-identity/except-domain	(2)

(1) = common-policy schema - common-policy draft version 04
(2) = common-policy schema - new common-policy draft (see
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/common-policy/)  

ciao
hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:53:30 -0400

I'm in favor of the change (probably with some attribute name more 
descriptive than 'val'...). If the change is made, all instances should 
be similar, to avoid confusion. Also, the element needs to be defined so 
that it doesn't accidentally allow <id entity="[email-masked]">some 
random text</id>, having made that mistake myself.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:40:16 -0500

I don't like "val" either

At 11:53 AM 7/13/2005 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>descriptive than 'val'...). If the change is made, all instances should be 
>similar, to avoid confusion. Also, the element needs to be defined so that 
>it doesn't accidentally allow <id entity="[email-masked]">some random 
>text</id>, having made that mistake myself.
>
>>position. it does not allow selection based on element content.
>>assumptions:
>>-----------
>>consequence: -----------
>>  - xml schema needs an update  - examples need to be updated
>>question: --------

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:38:19 -0400

On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> descriptive than 'val'...). If the change is made, all instances  
> should be similar, to avoid confusion. Also, the element needs to  
> be defined so that it doesn't accidentally allow <id  
> entity="[email-masked]">some random text</id>, having made that  
> mistake myself.

I agree with everything Henning just said (shocking as it maybe,  
lately).

-andy

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:26:19 +0300

Naturally, I'm in favor of the change. I also agree with Henning's 
remarks below.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:35:50 -0400

Unsurprisingly, I'm in favro as well. Its not necesary to make 
EVERYTHING in the xml document an element that you can get a "handle" on 
with xcap, but it should be things you except users to change 
atomically. The <id> element are going to be the lists of users that are 
the white (and, perhaps black...) lists. The most common operation that 
we will see is "add joe to my white list" or "remove bob from my black 
list". That is going to require this change to be reasonably efficient.

-Jonathan R.

Aki Niemi wrote:

>> should be similar, to avoid confusion. Also, the element needs to be 
>> defined so that it doesn't accidentally allow <id 
>>> http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/TEMP/common-policy/) ciao
>>> hannes
>>>

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com