Subject: AW: AW: [Geopriv] common policy document

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:47:58 +0200

hi jari, 

thanks for your comment. please find a short response below: 

~snip~snip~

> I'll have another question about common-pol-05. I don't understand
> <domain>s in <any-identity>. It seems to me that they break the
> consistent model of "anything", why can't you get similar thing with
> <domain>s in <identity> ?

this is a very good question. the <any-identity> was proposed as a
condition element that matches any authenticated and asserted identity.
the <any-identity> is basically a short version of <identity/> combined
with <asserted/>. the <any-identity> with the domain element can also be
replaced by the respective combination of <identity> and <asserted>.

hence, your comment raises the question whether we can actually omit the
<any-identity> element. at the interim meeting there was no comment
regarding this issue. what do you think?

ciao
hannes
> br,
> Jari

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:51:32 -0400

To help the discussion along, can you summarize the two options or given 
an example?